HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 595 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 28.05.2025 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. 830 of 2023 under Sections 420, 506, 504, 427, 467, 468, 471 of 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki. 4. As per contents of F.I.R., a property situate in Barabanki was purchased by the sister of informant by sale deed dated 06.01.2023. The incident is said to have taken place on 11.06.2023 when co-accused are said to have barged into the house of informant and entered into an altercation whereafter the informant being knowledge that the vendor of sale deed dated 06.01.2023 had subsequently sold the same property to another person. 5. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him only on account of the fact that she is the subsequent purchaser by means of second sale deed. It is submitted that it is in fact the applicant as well who has been cheated by the owner of the property by selling the same property to applicant while having executed a sale deed with regard Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Kumar Yadav, Poonam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Saroj Kumari .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) to the said property earlier also. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and undertakes to co-operate in the investigation, which is ongoing. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that applicant in fact is not co- operating in the investigation. 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 applicant is the subsequent purchaser of the property which was allegedly sold earlier by the owner of the property to the sister of informant. The aspect of applicant also having been proceeded by the owner of property would be subject matter of consideration during trial. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history and undertakes to co-operate with the investigation which is ongoing. 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-applicant Smt. Saroj Kumari 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-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 accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and she 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. (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 08.07.2025, as fresh along with service report. 12. Objection may be filed in the meantime. 13. Learned AGA shall obtain instructions by next date of listing with regard to applicant's co- operation in the investigation. " 3. The office has reported on 07.07.2025 that the notice issued to the opposite party no.2 stands served but the opposite party no.2 has not come forward to oppose the anticipatory bail. 4. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the anticipatory ABAIL No. 595 of 2025 2 bail application and an apprehension has been expressed therein, that the applicant may leave the country to evade facing the trial. 5. There is already a condition in the interim order dated 28.05.2025 that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. 6. 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 28.05.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. In view of above, the interim order dated 28.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Preeti. ABAIL No. 595 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench