Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24778 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 919 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 142 of 1991, under Section 395 IPC, Police Station- Simbhaoli, District- Hapur, during the pendency of trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant first information report has been lodged in the year 1991, thereafter, charge-sheet has been submitted. Applicant had no knowledge in regard to notice issued by the Trial Court as applicant address was not correct in the charge-sheet, which is evident from the order dated 05.11.2024, therefore, applicant could not appear before the Trial Court to contest trial proceedings. Applicant has criminal history of one case, which has been duly explained in the present anticipatory bail application. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant and submitted that applicant had knowledge in regard to trial proceedings as in the year 2010 one counsel, namely, Pankaj Kumar Soti appeared on behalf of the applicant, which is evident from para-11 of the rejection order, as such, applicant deliberately avoided trial proceedings. He further submitted at present proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant. Hence, applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail. 5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of record, it appears that applicant had knowledge in regard to trial proceedings as earlier in the year 2010 one counsel, namely, Pankaj Kumar Soti appeared and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant. Moreover, proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant, as such, no case for interference by this Court is made out. 6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad