HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 586 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri. Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, 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 anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 27.05.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court: " Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party. Issue notice to opposite party No.2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No.673 of 2015 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur. As per contents of application which has been treated as a complaint case, the informant's father Devki Nandan is said to have passed away whereafter one Smt. Kusum who is also nominated allegedly impersonated herself as the widow of Devki Nandan and is said to have subsequently executed a sale deed on 16th March, 2015 with regard to his properties. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him only on account of the fact that he is marginal witness in the aforesaid sale deed. It is submitted that earlier this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 5006 of 2017 has been pleased to stay to proceedings of complaint case No. 673 of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Khudabaks .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 2015 vide order dated 4th August,2017. The said application was thereafter disposed of finally vide order dated 7th December, 2022 granting liberty for filing discharge application. It is submitted that subsequent to filing of complaint case, the informant filed a suit for cancellation of will deed for declaration against the will deed which was dismissed in default of appearance. Another suit bearing regular suit No. 180 of 2015 was also filed seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 16th March, 2015 and has been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 25th May, 2017. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation levelled against the applicant and an unnecessary criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute. The applicant undertakes to cooperate during process of trial. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application but does not dispute the said fact. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that applicant has been nominated as marginal witness of the sale deed dated 16th March, 2015. It also appears that regular suits filed with regard to will deed and subsequently sale deed have already been dismissed. The aspect of civil litigation being given a criminal colour would require consideration. The applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial. 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. Let the accused-applicant Khudabaks 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. 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 court concerned on the following conditions:- (i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; ABAIL No. 586 of 2025 2 (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. List this case on 8th July, 2025 as fresh along with service report. Objections may be filed in the meantime." 3. The office reported on 07.07.2025 that the notice issued to the opposite party no.2 stands served personally, as per a report dated 09.06.2025 sent by the Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Balrampur but the opposite party no.2 has not come forward to oppose the anticipatory bail application. 4. The Sate has filed a counter affidavit opposing the anticipatory bail but there is no allegation of misuse of the liberty of granting interim anticipatory bail 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 27.05.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. In view of above, the interim order dated 27.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Preeti. ABAIL No. 586 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