Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6215 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11853 of 2024 Applicant :- Sanjay Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Pravesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 249 of 2024, under Sections 406, 506, 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli. 3. Allegation in the FIR is that informant sold the property to the applicants in the year 2020 by registered sale deed but applicants have not paid full sale consideration, hence, the present FIR. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation in the FIR is totally false and baseless. Informant sold his property after receiving full sale consideration. It is civil nature dispute. No offence under the alleged sections is made out. Applicant has no previous criminal history. Investigation proceeding is under progress. Till today, no charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. Applicants' counsel undertakes that applicants will co-operate in the trial, failing which, the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant with the contention that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail as prima facie case is made out. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record, only on the basis of imaginary fear, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98. 6. Let the applicants, namely, Sanjay Yadav and Bhagwani Devi, who are involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report U/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) The applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. 7. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. 8. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants. 9. The present anticipatory bail application stands allowed. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad