Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20237 Court No. - 6 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 364 of 2025 Applicant :- Manoj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Sharma,Aakash Rai,Vaibhav Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vikrant Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri Shaunak Singh, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. In the present case, the FIR in question was filed as Case Crime No.0411 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 3. The applicant had earlier approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was numbered as CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C No.128 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2024 had granted anticipatory bail observing that the applicant was only a marginal witness of the sale deed, which was executed by co- accused Vinayak Rai in favour of the informant. Subsequent to the passing of the said interim bail, this Court came to pass an order on 25.05.2024, whereby the interim order dated 25.01.2024 was confirmed and the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial. The said order was also passed on the arguments that the applicant was a marginal witness. Subsequently, a bail cancellation application was filed, in which, it was alleged that the anticipatory bail was obtained by misleading this Court by stating that he was only a marginal witness, whereas the money was transferred in the account of the accused, the applicant herein. On the said application, an order of cancellation came to be passed on 19.02.2025. After the said cancellation order, the present application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken by the trial court and the applicant is cooperating with the trial. He argues, on the basis of the documents filed, that in between the applicant and co-accused, several transactions of money being exchanged are evidenced from the statement of account filed by the applicant for the year 2019-20. He thus argues that on account of the money lent by the applicant to the co-accused, the same was returned, which is now being projected as part of the sale consideration received from the informant by the co-accused Vinayak Rai, which is incorrect. 5. A perusal of the statement of account, as reveals that several huge transactions of money took place in between the applicant and co-accused. The instructions produced by the learned AGA demonstrate that after the execution of the sale deed in question, in which the applicant claims to be only a marginal witness, substantial amounts have been received, which are approximately Rs.24 lacs. Considering the material shown by the learned AGA, it is clear that the role of the applicant is beyond that of the marginal witness. 6. In view of the compelling circumstances and the evidence recorded above, no good ground for anticipatory bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. 8. The applicant would be at liberty to apply for regular bail in accordance with law before appropriate court. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench