Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8631 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12237 of 2024 Applicant :- Sulabh Agrawal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record. 3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case No. 3998 of 2020, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 3 of 2019, under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Rasoolpur, District- Firozabad. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have usurped an amount of Rs. 36,63,389/- of the informant, as he had purchased bangles from him in the year 2018 and had not given him the amount of the said bangles. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants were granted protection by this Court till submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. The said final report (charge sheet) has been submitted on 17th July, 2019. 6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. 7. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY/STATE: 8. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been opposed on the ground that the applicants have not come with clean hands and has not co- operated in trial and avoided his appearance before the Court concerned. CONCLUSION: 9. In Kartarey and others Vs. The State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172, the Supreme Court has opined that to be an 'absconder' in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home. 10. Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the facts of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants pertains to regular bail application and cannot be agitated u/s 482 BNSS at this stage. 11. In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants Sulabh Agrawal, Vaibhav Agrawal and Sunil Agrawal, is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad