Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28494 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 338 of 2025 Applicant :- Fayaz Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Yadav,Akansha Pathak,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Muskan Bharti,Piyush Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atharva Arya,Shri Kishan Prajapati Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant,learned A.G.A. for opposite party-State and Mr. Krishan Prajapati, learned counsel for informant. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No.53 of 2024, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 392, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow. 3. As per contents of first information report, incident is said to have taken place on 17.02.2024 at 1.45 pm, when about 20 to 25 persons in the garb of Lawyers are said to have forcibly entered upon the plot of informant and are said to have attacked and driven away the laborers working thereupon. CCTV footage has also been claimed in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him only on account of the fact that he accompanied the main accused. It is submitted that there is no specific role attributed to the applicant with regard to allegations levelled. It is also submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history but subsequent history with regard to same allegation has been explained. It is also submitted that applicant after being granted interim protection on 27.03.2025 has cooperated in the investigation. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that examination of CCTV footage clearly indicates complicity of applicant in the allegations which have been levelled in the FIR. Learned AGA also submits on the basis of counter affidavit that the plot in question in fact appears to have been allotted in terms of a compromise between the LDA and one Maan Sarovar Cooperative Society. It is also submitted that applicants were claiming that the co-accused Raj Kumar and Maya Devi were claiming owner-ship of the plot in question on the basis of alleged sale-deed, which upon investigation was discovered to be fabricated. It is submitted that applicant is a gang member of the main accused Raj Kumar. It is however admitted that investigation still ongoing in which applicant is cooperating. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that earlier interim protection had been granted to be applicant by means of order dated 27.03.2025 with specific direction being issued to the learned AGA to obtain instructions as to how the informant was unable to unidentify the applicant from CCTV footage although his name indicate in the FIR. Learned AGA on that basis has submitted that applicant was identified from CCTV footage. It also appears from a perusal of FIR and the counter affidavit that applicant does not appear to have any specific role assigned to him with regard to forgery of sale- deed executed in favour of co-accused Raj Kumar and Maya Devi with regard to plot in question. There also does not appear to be injury reported upon the laborers. Investigation in the matter still ongoing in which applicant admittedly is cooperating. Learned counsel for applicant has also provided an undertaking of applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation. Thus, in view of law laid down 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 anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS. 7. In view of above, it is provided that till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C./193 BNSS in the event of arrest, applicant Fayaz Ahmad shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on his/her 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:- (i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) That the accused-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 accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (iv) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this order. 8. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench