Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136743 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12234 of 2024 Applicant :- Hakikullah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. This is the second criminal misc. anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The First Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9896 of 2024 (Hakikullah Vs. State of U.P. ) has been disposed of by Hon'ble Deepak Verma, vide order dated 23.10.2024. The case is before this Court vide order dated 03.08.2025 passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Statin Menhadawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail till conclusion of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had filed a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.No. 9896 of 2024 (Hakikullah Vs. State of U.P.) which was disposed of vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court with the direction that if the applicant surrender before the concerned Court below within two weeks from the date of order, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the Courts below in accordance with settled law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. Learned counsel further submits that due to unavoidable circumstances the applicant could not appear as such time extension application was moved, which has been rejected vide order dated 14.11.2024. He further submits that the applicant has apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, inspite of the fact that there is no credible evidence against him. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the 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. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant was granted protection vide order dated 23.10.2024 for a period of two weeks in the meantime, the applicant was directed to surrender before the Court below but the applicant did not care to appear before the trial Court for obtaining bail and thereafter the applicant has filed the instant anticipatory bail on 18.12.2024 without any new ground. Two anticipatory bail application on the same cause of action is not permissible. Furthermore, 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 :- 12.8.2025 S.Ali/S.Mishra Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad