Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5693 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1581 of 2024 Applicant :- Shanti Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Upadhyay,Pranvesh Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. From perusal of the order sheet, it transpires that the notice has been served to complainant/ informant/ opposite party no.2 but no one is present for the opposite party no.2. 3. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime/F.I.R No.264/2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya. 4. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 18.07.2024, the following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.264/2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the co-accused Karunakar Singh has taken Rs.10,00,000/- loan from the Sriram Finance Company for the purpose of business by placing forged and fabricated documents regarding the property. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the mother of co-accused persons. She has no clue about the offence committed by the co-accused person. She is not the beneficiary. She has no criminal antecedent. Applicant in good faith has taken the guarantee of the loan. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the investigation. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List on 09.08.2024. Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the undertaking given by the counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant is a lady, offences are triable by magistrate as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant-Shanti Singh shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned. The 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. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." 5. From perusal of the order dated 18.07.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Shanti Singh till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. 7. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench