Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89213 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11615 of 2024 Applicant :- Subhash Patel And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Singh,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Gupta,G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. This is the second anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicants. The first Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9577 of 2024 has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh, vide order dated 22.10.2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Purshottam Upadhyaya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.2088 of 2018 (State Vs. Subhash Patel and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 04 of 2017, under Sections 506, 504, 427, 436 I.P.C., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no credible evidence against the applicant and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has also been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant undertakes to co-operate during the trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of eye-witnesses namely, Subhash Patel and argued that the applicant has been assigned the specific role in commission of alleged offence. 6. 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. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad