HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8231 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Mr. Choudhary Dilnisar, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Choudhary Dilnisar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Uma Shanker Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 322 of 2004, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 4. 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. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants as the civil dispute is being given colour of criminality and parties have entered into compromise. It is submitted that the applicants are vendee and they have purchased some immovable property from the first informant and the allegation against them is that sale deed of the above property was got executed by a person who impersonated as first informant. It is submitted that a civil suit is also pending between the parties regarding the said property. It is further submitted that the applicants moved this Court by filing an application u/s Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anil Agarwal And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 482 CrPC and this Court vide order dated 5.3.2005 directed the applicants to move a discharge application through counsel and in the meantime non-bailable warrants be kept in abeyance. It is submitted that the trial Court has decided the discharge application on 25.6.2025 and the discharge application has been rejected. It is also submitted that the applicants have already given up their claim on the said property and the first informant is still in possession over the property in question. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant does not oppose the application for anticipatory bail, however, learned A.G.A. has opposed the same. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The applicants are said to have purchased some immovable property from a person who impersonated as first informant. The applicants moved this Court by filing an application under Section 482 CrPC and this Court vide order dated 5.3.2005 directed the applicants to move a discharge application through counsel and in the meantime non-bailable warrants were kept in abeyance. The trial Court has decided the discharge application on 25.6.2025 and the same has been rejected. The parties have entered into compromise and a civil dispute is also pending. 8. 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. 9. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, NABAIL No. 8231 of 2025 2 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. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Anil Agarwal, Lalitesh Upadhyay and Anuj Kumar 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. 12. 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 9, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8231 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad