HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8244 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.2157 of 2025, under Sections 269, 272, 273 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted the allegation in the first information report is that the applicant has been illegally extracting fat from furnaces, using the fat to make ghee, and adulterating food items are said to have been recovered from some residential locality. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged against unknown and during investigation, the name of the applicant has surfaced. It is further submitted that some of the co- accused have approached before this Court and the proceedings against them have already been stayed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 24.09.2014, 25.09.2014, 23.02.2015 and 25.03.2019 passed in Application U/s 482 No.41462 of 2014, Application U/s 482 No.42051 of 2014, Application U/s 482 No.5184 of 2015 and Application U/s 482 No.10463 of 2019. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co- operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tarik .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co- operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the case is of the year 2009. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the proceedings of the case were stayed against co-accused persons and the case has not progressed in the trial and the NBW were issued against the applicants. 6. The first information report has been lodged against unknown and during investigation, the name of the applicant has surfaced. It is further submitted that some of the co-accused have approached before this Court and the proceedings against them have already been stayed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. 7. 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, 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, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Tarik involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; NABAIL No. 8244 of 2025 2 (ii) The applicant 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 applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. 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 applicant. October 10, 2025 RKM NABAIL No. 8244 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad