HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8135 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant prays and seeks permission to delete the name of first informant from the array of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to delete the name of the array of the parties during the course of the day. 3. Heard Sri Amit Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Yogendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 288 of 2012, under Sections 457, 380, 448 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Saharanpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the present case is a counterblast to the earlier case filed by the applicants against the first informant. It is next submitted that applicants have no criminal history. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants as per the first information report. It is also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. As per first information report, it is alleged that applicants entered into the house of the first informant and took away various belongings of the house in the night. Earlier, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Abdul Gaffur And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant no. 1 is said to have lodged the case against the first informant in the year 2011 and also there is some tenancy dispute between the first informant and the applicant no. 1 relating to the shop of the first informant. He has lastly submitted that applicants have no criminal history. 9. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 10. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Abdul Gaffur And Zindi involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 13. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants herein. October 7, 2025 Neetu NABAIL No. 8135 of 2025 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad