Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48281 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 375 of 2025 Applicant :- Gyanesh Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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 29.04.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party no.1-State. Issue notice to opposite party no.2. 2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to 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., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow. 3. As per contents of first information report, Anupam Pathak and Rajesh Pathak has said to have introduced the informant 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 it transpired that the said property did not belong to said Neeraj Singh. It is also alleged that applicant thereafter sought to return an amount of Rs.14,00, 000/- by cheque which was also dishonoured. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant on the basis of instructions that applicant is still ready and willing to return the amount of informant. It is submitted that the main gist of allegation has been fact made against Neeraj Singh who is said to have executed a fabricated sale- deed. It is also submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that involvement of applicant in the aforesaid transaction is clearly indicated. 6. In view of submission of learned counsel for applicant that he is ready and willing to return the entire amount of the informant and the main gist of allegation being levelled against Neeraj Singh, 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. 7. Let the accused- Gyanesh Pathak applicant 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. 8. 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 applicant shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the 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 applicant(s) shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant(s) shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant(s) shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant(s) shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, benefit of this order would not be available to applicant(s). 9. Connect and list alongwith Anticipatory Bail Application No.253 of 2025,as fresh alongwith service report. 10. Objections may be filed in the meantime." 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 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 29.04.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. In view of above, the interim order dated 29.04.2025 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