Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22460 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 349 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 while power on behalf of complainant has been filed by Mr. Brijesh Kumar Kuldeep, Advocate, which is taken on record. Counter affidavit filed by State is also taken on record. 2. On 01.04.2025, the following order had been passed granting interim anticipatory bail to applicant:- "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. 3. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.45 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, Mankapur, District Gonda. 4. As per contents of first information report which has been lodged by one Badloo levelling allegation that on the basis of a forged power of attorney, one Ram Kumar had executed a sale deed on 30.09.2021. The persons nominated in F.I.R. are alleged beneficiaries of said illegal transaction. 5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from fact that applicant's name is not indicated either in first information report or even in charge sheet and has come to light after seventeen months of filing of partial charge sheet. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that aforesaid amount in fact was credited in his account by one of the accused on account of previous loan having been extended by applicant and that applicant in fact is not a recipient or beneficiary of alleged illegal transaction. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail with submission that credit of Rs.1,00,000/- into account of applicant clearly indicates his complicity in the issue as a beneficiary. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 8. It is submitted that investigation against applicant however is ongoing. 9. 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, it appears that applicant is not named either in first information report or even in charge sheet and his name has come to light during investigation as a recipient of Rs.1,00,000/- said to be a portion of money received on account of sale deed being executed. Applicant does not have any previous criminal history as indicated herein above. 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 interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 10. List this case on 18.04.2025 along with service report. 11. Objections may be filed in the meantime. 12. In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in the event of arrest, applicant Sanjay Kumar Pandey 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:- 13. 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. 14. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." 3. In pursuance thereto, learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of instructions submits that investigation in the matter is still ongoing and there is nothing adverse that applicant is not cooperating during course of investigation. 4. Considering the reasons indicated in earlier order dated 01.04.2025, the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier to applicant is made absolute and it is provided that till till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the event of arrest, applicant Sanjay Kumar Pandey shall be released on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.45 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, Mankapur, District Gonda 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and (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. 5. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench