Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10691 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1919 of 2024 Applicant :- Sandeep @ Sandeep Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Aman Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 167 of 2024, under Sections 457, 380 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.08.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "The present application has been filed by the applicant Sandeep @ Sandeep Upadhyay seeking anticipatory bail in case crime no. 167 of 2024 under Section 457, 380 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal history. He has been falsely implicated. The informant is not the eye witness. The occurrence is of 26.3.2024 and F.I.R. has been lodged on 4.4.2023. The alleged eye witness Sheshmani Tripathi is not the eye witness. His statement has been recorded after unexplained delay of more than one month. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. On due consideration to the fact that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., he has no criminal antecedents, the informant is not the eye witness, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and 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. List on 18.9.2024. In the meantime, counter affidavit/ objections be filed." From perusal of the order dated 27.08.2024, 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 thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Sandeep @ Sandeep Upadhyay till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself 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 him 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. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 17.2.2025/kkv/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench