Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13871 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11746 of 2024 Applicant :- Madan Lal Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Dwivedi,Tryambak Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No 1076 of 2003, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Airwakatra, District Auraiya. 3. Instant complaint lodged in the year 2003 and in the year 2004 summon was issued against the applicants, thereafter, applicants filed 482 application before this Court challenging the summoning order, this Court vide order dated 24.08.2004 stayed the further proceedings of the complaint case, thereafter in the year 2007 applicant no.1 filed 482 application which was dismissed by co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.09.2017. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; No offence under the alleged sections is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of anticipatory bail is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 6. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 7. Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel as well as learned AGA, it is apparent from the record that applicants having knowledge of the proceedings but did not appear before the trial court since 2017 after dismissal of 482 application and has avoided to participate in trial proceedings. The act of applicants are not appreciable, hence, this Court find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. 9. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law. 10. Till two weeks from today or till surrender of the applicants before court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad