Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49747 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1069 of 2025 Applicant :- Juned Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajey Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Ajey Singh, the learned counsel for the complainant. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 100 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 409, 504, 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Rupaideeha, District Bahraich. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged 15.04.2025 against five persons, including the applicant in furtherance of an application under section 173(3) BNS, stating that the complainant had made investments in share market through J.A. Financial Services of the applicant. She had invested Rs.10 lakhs subject to condition that she will be paid Rs. 50,000/- per month and she had invested Rs.8 lakhs for a period of six months as fixed deposit for which she was promised to be paid Rs. 10,40,000/-. The informant's brother and his friends have also made investments in the company. The informant's brother was given two cheques for Rs. 60 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs, but the cheques were returned by the bank unpaid. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been contended that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in another case instituted by the informant's brother has been disclosed in para 22 of the affidavit, in which, the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail. 5. The learned A.G.A has opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that investigation in the present case is still going on. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the applicant had duped the informant and number of other persons. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R states that the applicant had handed over two cheques for Rs. 62 lakhs to the informant's brother; the F.I.R. states that the cheques have been dishonored by the bank but there is no averment regarding any complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; and that besides another criminal case of similar nature instituted by the informant's brother, the applicant has no previous criminal history and the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail in the other case instituted by the informant's brother and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Juned Ahmad before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make themselves 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. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J. Order Date :- 25.8.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench