HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 274 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satendra Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 28.02.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 175 of 2022, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC P.S.- Kotwali Utraula District - Balrampur. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the matter is civil in nature and that is being given colour of criminality as two cases are pending, one is before Tehsildar concerned and the other one is before the civil court bearing Regular Suit No. 205 of 2008. He added that in fact the matter is that an un-registered will-deed was executed by the grand father of the applicant in his favour in year 1968 and thereafter, the property in question was mutated in favour of the applicant in year 2020 when he became major and thereafter, a recall application was moved, wherein, an order was passed on 24.07.2024 and the matter is still pending consideration before the court concerned. He also submitted that there is no criminal intent to commit offence as no mensrea is involved and the matter is purely of civil in nature. Further the applicant has no criminal history as mentioned in paragraph no. 29 of the anticipatory bail application. In support of his Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Saleem .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment decided in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 28 February, 2022 and added that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment above- said. He further argued that the applicant is cooperating in the investigation proceedings and chargesheet has been filed and he undertakes that he will always remain present before the trial court as and when required. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committed offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Mohd. Saleem shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in first week of April, 2025. ABAIL No. 274 of 2025 2 In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits. " 3. The office has reported that on 03.04.2025 that the notice issue to opposite party no. 2 stands served personally but the opposite party no. 2 has not put in appearance to oppose the anticipatory bail application. 4. The State has also chosen not to file any counter affidavit. 5. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 28.02.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. In view of above, the interim order dated 28.02.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Anurag ABAIL No. 274 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench