Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48281 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 253 of 2025 Applicant :- Anupam Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 19.03.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1. 2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 served through Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 3. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to F.I.R. /Case Crime No.0056 of 2025, under Sections 316(2),316(5), 318(4),336(3),338, 340(2),351(3), 352 B.N.S. Act, registered at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow. 4. As per contents of FIR, applicant alongwith one Rajesh Pathak introduced the informant to one Neeraj Singh for purposes of purchase of plot no.2/62 Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow whereafter a sale-deed was executed in favour of informant on 20.09.2021 by Neeraj Singh but subsequently it transpired that the said property did not belong to said Neeraj Singh. It is also alleged that subsequently co-accused Gyanesh Pathak sought to return an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- by means of cheque, which was also dishonoured. 5. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that there is no serious allegation against him for having executed the sale-deed or obtaining any amount in lieu thereof fraudulently. It is submitted that the entire gist of allegations has in fact been made against Neeraj Singh, Pawan Kumar and Gyanesh Pathak. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed bail application with the submission that involvement of applicant in the aforesaid fraudulent transaction has been clearly indicated in the first information report. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to further evidence being collected during investigation, thus, in view of law settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another; (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. List this case on 03.04.2025, as fresh alongwith service report. 9. Objections may be filed in the meantime. 10. In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in the event of arrest, applicant Anupam Pathak shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned subject to following conditions:- 11. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. 12. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection" 3. Although, the opposite party no.2 has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama in favour of his counsel, the opposite party no.2 has not filed any counter affidavit. 4. The Sate has filed a counter affidavit opposing the anticipatory bail application but there is no allegation of misuse of the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 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 19.03.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. In view of above, the interim order dated 19.03.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench