Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41908 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6601 of 2025 Applicant :- Suresh Narayan Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath Mishra,Rahul Mishra,Vineet Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. A supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant prepared a forged notarized agreement by affixing the photograph of an imposter in place of the complainant’s son, who neither executed any such agreement nor received any consideration from the purchaser. It is further alleged that the complainant was threatened on 02.04.2012 on the basis of the said agreement. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has instituted a suit for specific performance of the notarized agreement dated 06.02.2003, registered as Suit No. 188/2012, wherein the complainant and other parties have filed their written statements and the matter is still pending. Subsequently, on 05.05.2012, the complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which an FIR was directed to be registered vide order dated 16.05.2012. A charge sheet was thereafter submitted in the case, which was challenged by the applicant before this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition remained pending and an interim order was passed in the applicant’s favour. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2019, granting liberty to the applicant to move an application for discharge through counsel. However, the applicant was unaware of this order. It is further submitted that the dispute is of a purely civil nature. The applicant is 70 years of age and is in custody since 12.06.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. On due consideration to the fact that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, the applicant’s age, the explanation regarding his two criminal antecedents, and the fact that the charge sheet was filed way back in the year 2012, I am of the view that this is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Suresh Narayan Dubey involved in Case Crime No. 586/2012, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Gonda, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench