Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35478 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 665 of 2025 Applicant :- Babita (Pradhan Banmai) Alias Bavita Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 595 of 2022 u/s 409 IPC, Police Station- Gosainganj, District- Sultanpur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted. Applicant was not taken into custody. He has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5442/2021) and requested that applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He also submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and except the present case, he does not have any criminal antecedent, hence, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that applicant had filed petition under Section 482 bearing No. 1174 of 2025. The petition was disposed of on 19.02.2025 with protection that for the period of two weeks she will not be arrested and thereafter aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 5101 of 2025, which was dismissed. He also submitted that anticipatory bail application of co-accused Gautam Patel has already been rejected, therefore applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the F.I.R. as well as other relevant materials, it is undisputed fact that the applicant was not taken into custody during the course of investigation. It is evident that no custodial trial is necessary in the case in question. This Court, in the light of Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Siddharth versus State of U.P. & Anr. (supra), finds it a fit case for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case the applicant is taken into custody by Investigating Officer/Investigating Agency, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail after taking personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (ii) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 7. With above directions, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 12.6.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench