Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10559 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1976 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar (Singh),Abhishek Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Kumar Yadav 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 FIR No. 541 of 2023, under Sections 409/420/120-B IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow. The notice has been issued to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and as per office report, the same has been served personally but no one is present for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 30.08.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "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 by the applicant Anil Kumar Singh seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 541/2023, under Sections 409/420/120-B IPC, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the complainant and others have invested in the Involve Infrabuild Private Limited company for purchase of land on the promise and assurance given by Dipali Mishra, Sharad Tiwari, Surya Prakash Dubey and Yogendra Singh. It is alleged that when they requested the accused persons for execution of sale deed, they have been asked to talk with the present applicant and Anil Singh. It is also alleged that upon being confronted with the aforesaid two persons, they were asked to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- per square feet of land only then, the sale deed will be executed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no money has been handed over to the present applicant. The applicant has been appointed as a director of the company on 13.07.2023 and the agreement dated 04.07.2023 has been entered between the applicant and Surya Prakash Dubey who is responsible for the assurance given in agreement dated 04.07.2023. The complainant has not disclosed any time or date of the alleged incident while lodging FIR. The FIR has been lodged under Sections 406/420 IPC, however, during investigation, section 409 IPC has been added by the investigating officer. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has explained criminal history of the applicant in paragraph 29 of the bail application and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit. On due consideration to the fact that the offences are triable by magistrate, so also the date of appointment of the applicant in the company; and also considering 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, as an interim measure, 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 shall be released on 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 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. List on 23.09.2024." From perusal of the order dated 30.08.2024, 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, Anil Kumar Singh 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