Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10426 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2210 of 2024 Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey,Kusuma Devi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Janak Yadav Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Janak Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0165 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, Police Station Khondare, District Gonda. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 25.09.2024, 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 as well as Shri Ram Janak Yadav, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 165/2024, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/406 I.P.C., P.S. Khondare, District Gonda. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on the pretext of providing job, the applicant and co-accused Harish Tiwari had taken Rs. 5.15 lakh via UPI and other mode of payments from the victim. They called her to Mumbai stating that she has been selected for the post of Air Hostess in Indigo and also sent forged joining letter. When the complainant reached Mumbai, she was mentally tortured by the accused persons and when she came to know that she was given a forged joining letter, she returned to her home and told the entire incident to her family members. It has been further alleged that the accused persons issued two cheques to her to the tune of Rs. 2.85 lakh and Rs. 80,000/- respectively, however, the cheques were dishonored after being presented in the bank. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence, if any, has been done, is done by co-accused. The applicant has only introduced the victim to the co-accused. The contents of the FIR are incorrect. The correct version has not been stated while lodging FIR. The applicant, via online transaction, has returned a sum of Rs. 2,85,029/- in the account of the complainant. He further submits that he is ready and willing to enter into compromise outside the Court. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that still the amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- is due upon the accused persons, however, he has no difficulty in settling the matter with the applicant. On due consideration to the statement given by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the complainant 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 report to the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall cooperate in the investigation. 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 22.10.2024. On the next date, the applicant shall file the settlement agreement so entered between the applicant and the victim." From perusal of the order dated 25.09.2024, it transpires that learned State Counsel, on the basis of instructions, 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 complainant 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, Sushil Kumar Tiwari 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