Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30280 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11930 of 2024 Applicant :- Om Prakash Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Sarin,Zainab Noor Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants for enlarging them on bail in Complaint Case No.900 of 2006, under Sections 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi. 4. Fact of the case is that present complaint was lodged in the year 1995. Thereafter, in the year 1996 summons were issued against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants moved application under section 195 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, complainant filed revision before the Additional Session Judge, Varanasi as Criminal Revision No.189 of 1998. The revision was decided by order dated 17.10.2002. Thereafter, applicants filed Criminal Revision No.1762 of 2002 and revision of the applicants by order dated 13.08.2010 has been dismissed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicants having no knowledge in regard to summon issued by the learned magistrate and after getting knowledge they moved anticipatory bail application and the anticipatory bail application of the applicants was rejected by learned Additional & District Judge without going into merits of the case and on the ground that there is no apprehension of arrest by the Investigating Officer whereas it is a complaint case and court has issued summons against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that the applicants had filed civil suit before filing of instant complaint in the year 1993. Civil suit is pending between the parties. Thereafter, with malice intention, this complaint has been lodged. Finding recorded by the learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind. It is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected. 6. The object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 7. 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. 8. Heard learned counsel for the both parties. From the record, it is apparent that applicants got knowledge regarding summons issued in the year 1996 as it is apparent that applicants after receiving summons moved application under section 195 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, after rejection of revision filed by complainant, immediately filed criminal revision before this Hon'ble Court. Criminal Revision No.1762 of 2002 was rejected on 13.08.2010. Since 2010, applicants did not appear before trial court and not cooperated with the trial proceeding. It is apparent from the record that after rejection of revision in the year 2010, applicants have not cooperated with the trial proceeding and having knowledge that complaint case is pending against them. Prima-facie offence is made out against the applicants. No interference is warranted. 9.Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. 10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants- Om Prakash Singh, Mahendra Kumar Singh & Virendra Kumar involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad