Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3549 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 45 of 2025 Applicant :- Neelam Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta,Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prateek Tewari Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Sri Prateek Tewari, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant,Sri Prateek Tewari, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 375 of 2024, under sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station-Sarojani Nagar, District- Lucknow. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that she is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He submits that so far as the loan on the house is concerned, that was mentioned in the agreement entered into between the parties and therefore, no cheat and fraud has ever been committed by him. He also submits that the applicant is a woman and as such, she is entitled for anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the agreement to sale dated 11-09-2018, is forged and fabricated as the same is shown to be prepared on the date of execution of the sale deed, which is improbable. He also added that cheat and fraud is committed. He submits the signature of Malti Devi, which is transcribed while making fabrication, is not of Malti Devi and it is different than the signature of Malti Devi, which is put on the registered sale deed, which can be seen from the open eyes itself. Therefore, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has also supported the version of teh learned counsel for the complainant and submits that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the agreement to sale is prepared on 11-09-2018 and it is not understandable as to why the same agreement is done on the same date, when the registered sale deed was executed. Further, the signature of Malti Devi, which is shown to be put on the agreement to sale, is altogether different than the signature on the registered sale deed. Considering all over scenario of the matter and the complicity of the accused-applicant and looking into the gravity of nature of offence, this court does not find any good ground to intervene in this matter. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Neelam Awasthi, is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 AKS Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench