Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10554 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2014 of 2024 Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Shanker Tewari,Ajay Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Counter affidavit filed today by learned Counsel for the State is taken on record. 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. 724 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC, Police Station Ram Janam Bhumi, District Ayodhya. The notice has been issued to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and as per office report, the same has been served but no one is present for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 04.09.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "1.The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.724 of 2024 under sections 323, 504, 506, 392 I.P.C., P.S. Ram Janam Bhumi, district Ayodhya. 2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is posted in Border Security Force at India-Bangladesh border. At the relevant time, when the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed, the applicant was posted there. An application under section 156(3) CrPC was filed by the complainant who is cousin brother of the applicant due to some family property dispute and has falsely implicated the applicant. The said application has been treated as a complaint case. The applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that earlier, against the summoning order, the applicant had filed an application under section 482 CrPC No. 12207 of 2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 15.12.2023 with a direction to the applicant to seek regular bail. However, he was not sanctioned leave from the department in the time frame fixed by this Court, hence present application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial. 4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel. 5.Issue notice to respondent No.2. 6.List on 26.9.2024. Objections/counter affidavit be filed, in the meantime. 7.Considering the above aspects of the matter, perusal of the record, the fact that the applicant is posted at India-Bangladesh border and is a soldier of BSF, delay in lodging the first information report, lack of corroborative evidence, 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 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. 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 trial court. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. Any other condition which the trial court deems fit and proper may also be imposed. 9. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." From perusal of the order dated 04.09.2024, 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, Suneel Kumar Maurya 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