HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 370 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Kinkar Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned AGA for the State and Shri Manoj Sahu, the learned counsel for the complainant. 2. On 09.05.2025 the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court by means of following order:- "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party No.1. Issue notice to opposite party No.2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 152 of 2021, under Section 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya. As per contents of F.I.R.,the informant was allegedly deceived into investing a substantial sum of money in the business of co-accused Rahul Mishra at the instance of co-accused Shyam Ji Mishra without any return thereupon. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from a perusal of F.I.R. itself in which applicant is shown only as an employee of the said company being team leader and being present at the time of negotiations. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation levelled against the applicant of having made any false promise. It is also submitted that the aspect of cheating viz-a-viz breach of promise is required to be considered. The applicant's previous criminal history of two cases has been duly explained. It is submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during course of trial. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that applicant did not cooperate in the investigation whereafter charge sheet has been filed against him. It is however admitted that criminal history has been explained. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Kinkar Upadhyay, Jagendra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Sahu Vibhor Sahu .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) trial, it appears that there is no specific allegation levelled against the applicant of having deceived the informant into investing in the aforesaid company. His participation appears to be the main cause of his nomination in the F.I.R. He has undertaken to cooperate during course of trial. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail. Let the accused-applicant Vibhor Sahu as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-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. (ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. List this case on 27th May, 2025 as fresh along with service report. Objections may be filed in the meantime." 3. The learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the charge sheet and the material collected during investigation. 4. The complainant has also filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application. 5. However, there is no allegation of violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has already furnished bail bonds. 7. In view of above, the interim order dated 09.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the order dated 09.05.2025. August 25, 2025 -Amit K- ABAIL No. 370 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench