HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11941 of 2024 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 Complaint Case No. 969 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide order dated 13.12.2024 the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till the next date of listing. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. There are material contradictions in the statements under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. One similarly circumstanced co-accused namely Mohammad Adil has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court till conclusion of trial and as the case of applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the aforesaid co-accused, Mohammad Adil, therefore, applicant may also be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate trial and she would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail, but they could not dispute the above submission made on behalf of applicant. 5. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shyam Babu Vaish Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Pandey Mahajveen .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 6. 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, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 7. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 8. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mahajveen, involved in the aforesaid complaint case shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on his 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 attend the court proceedings as and when required. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise or to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. September 15, 2025 Mustaqeem. ABAIL No. 11941 of 2024 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad