Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19748 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 242 of 2025 Applicant :- Satyam Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Neeraj Pal learned counsel for complainant whose power filed today is taken on record and perused the record. First anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with regard to case crime No. 07 of 2025 under Sections 121, 309(4), 351(3), 221 BNSS, P.S. Kotwali Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar. As per contents of F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place on 6th January, 2025 at about 5.00 P.M. when the applicant alongwith co-accused allegedly were instrumental in stealing away wood belonging to the government. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant is a labourer and he has no concern with the offence as alleged in the F.I.R., and owner of the trolley and tractor is someone else. He submits that subsequently the applicant and the informant have entered into compromise. He further submits that there is no criminal history of the applicant and in case, the applicant is granted interim bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is a labourer; the owner of the trolley and tractor is someone else; the applicant has no criminal history; and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co- operate in the trial proceedings. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Satyam Yadav shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- Let the applicant Satyam Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself/herself 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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant(s) shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant(s) shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant(s) shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant(s) 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, benefit of this order would not be available to applicant(s) Order Date :- 8.4.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench