Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123338 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9870 of 2024 Applicant :- Radheyshyam And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav,Raman Pandey,Sanjai Kumar Pandey,Surya Prakash Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed, annexing order sheet of the trial is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 4. Vide order dated 06.12.2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicants. It has also been submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents and the applicants undertake to cooperate during the trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 7. Perusal of record shows that vide order dated 18.11.2024 the applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail subject to the conditions mentioned in the order was granted, in which one of the condition was to the effect that the applicants shall cooperate with the investigation. The order sheet of the trial shows that applicants are not appearing before the trial and bailable warrant has also been issued against them, thus, the applicants have violated the condition and have misused the liberty of bail. In the 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, 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. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. 10. Interim order, if any stands vacated. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad