Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123336 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10060 of 2024 Applicant :- Anubhav Dwivedi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Tewari Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. 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. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 309 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 316(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Vide order dated 12.11.2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submits that though vide order dated 03.07.20205 this Court had directed to him to inform the Court about the status of the case, but in para-22 of the counter affidavit dated 17.12.2024 it has been specifically stated that applicants are absconding and are not cooperating with the investigation. 6. Perusal of record shows that vide order dated 12.11.2024 the applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail subject to the conditions mentioned in the order, in which one of the condition was to the effect that the applicants shall cooperate with the investigation. Since, as per the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, the applicants are absconding and are not cooperating with the investigation, thus, the applicants have violated the condition and have misusing 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. 7. 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. 8. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. 9. Interim order, if any stands vacated. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad