Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24475 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 777 of 2025 Applicant :- Jamila Khatoon And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R S Dubey,Rajesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Rampur, during pendency of trial. 3. 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. It is next submitted that applicant No. 1 is lady and applicants No. 2 and 3 are her sons. It is next argued that the allegation in the FIR is that after taking the money the applicants showed forged and fabricated document claiming the applicants are owner of the property and taken the advance money through cheque. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence is made out and after investigation charge sheet has been filed and it is a civil dispute. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicants have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 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. 6. 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. 7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicants and perused the record. 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 granting anticipatory bail to the applicants in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants Jamila Khatoon, Kamar Ali and Mohd. Rijwan , is rejected. 9. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 10. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 RPD Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad