HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 516 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Case called out. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant is reported to be ill. 3. This anticipatory bail application is pending since 07.05.2025, therefore, the Court proceeds to examine the record with the assistance of Sri Prashant Tripathi, the learned A.G.A for the State. 4. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 15.05.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party. 2. Issue notice to opposite party No.2 3. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 320 of 2018 under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Biswan, District Sitapur. 4. As per contents of F.I.R. the applicants have allegedly deceived the applicant into investing a substantial amount of money with the applicants for purposes of providing employment in Saudi Arabia, which, however, did not materialize and applicants also refused to repay the amount which had been paid by the informant for the said purpose. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajiv Raman Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Idrish @ Mohd. Idrish And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. It is submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against them which would be evident from the fact that FIR appears to have been lodged after considerable delay without indicating any cogent reason for same. It is submitted that there is no averment in the FIR as to the date, time, even presence of witnesses before whom said amount has been given. It is submitted that applicants are in fact being framed due to previous enmity. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that the contents of FIR clearly indicate the complicity of applicants in the allegations levelled. It is, however, submitted on the basis of instructions that as yet except for summons having been issued, there is neither any warrant or any process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. against applicants. It is submitted that there is in fact no apprehension of arrest. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that there is considerable delay in lodging of the FIR for which no cogent explanation has been provided. The aspect of witnesses before whom allegedly the amount was given would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. There does not appear to be any direct payment made into the accounts of the applicants. Previous criminal history of one case has been explained. There is nothing adverse with regard to applicants co- operation during investigation. The aspect of summons having been issued in terms of Section 420 IPC would clearly indicate apprehension of arrest. 8. 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. 9. Let the accused-applicants Idrish @ Mohd. Idrish and Mohd. Muid 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. 10. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicants 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-applicants shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicants shall remain present as and ABAIL No. 516 of 2025 2 when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicants 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. 11. List this case on 06.06.2025, as fresh along with service report. 12. Objections may be filed in the meantime. " 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur had reported on 31.05.2025 that the notice has been served on the opposite party no.2 personally yet neither the opposite party no.2 has put in appearance before this Court nor he has filed a counter affidavit. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the State. 7. 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 15.05.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. In view of above, the interim order dated 15.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Preeti. ABAIL No. 516 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench