Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28029 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 510 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Shukla,Amit Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. 2. In view of order being passed in this case, notices to opposite party no.3 stand dispensed with. 3. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.206 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow. 4. As per contents of first information report, informant had purchased 2000 square feet of immovable property in Khasra no.5 with Plot No.31 indicated in the situation as per the first information report from Greater Awadh Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. through its Joint Secretary, Anwar Ahmad by means of a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2003. Allegations levelled is that applicant alleging himself to be Secretary of the said Society subsequently illegally executed a sale deed dated 21.10.2021 in favour of co-accused for the same Khasra No.5 for 2500 square feet. 5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from fact that there is no allegation in the first information report that applicant has executed subsequent sale deed with regard to the property which was earlier allegedly sold to informant. It is submitted that said Khasra no.5 has a total area of about 27000 square feet of which informant has purchased only 2000 square feet whereas subsequent sale deed is said to have been executed by applicant for 2500 square feet and therefore does not pertain to the same property which was allegedly purchased by informant. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained and applicant is cooperating in the investigation. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail with submission that subsequent sale deed has been executed by applicant pertaining to the same property which had earlier been sold to informant in year 2003. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained and investigation is still ongoing. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. that applicant was instrumental in sale of the same very plot for which sale deed had already been executed in favour of informant in year 2003. The aspect of applicant having executed a sale deed for a plot other than the one which was sold to informant would require investigation as well as the fact of applicant being Secretary of the Society. It is admitted that investigation is still ongoing and there is nothing adverse that applicant is not cooperating in the same. 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. 8. In view of the 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 Raj Kumar 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 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. 9. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench