HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1251 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.0416 of 2023 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., corresponding sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(2), 352, 351(2)/(3) BNS, P.s. Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow. 2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the named accused persons including the applicant on the pretext of providing job in the High Court have taken Rs.9 lacs from the complainant and have provided forged appointment order and transfer order, and hurled abuses and threatened to kill. 4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no amount has been received in the account of the accused applicant. The offences are triable by Magistrate. Compromise has been entered between Ranjeet Tiwari, main accused and Aman Kumar Mishra, complainant. The compromise has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that both the parties have settled the dispute outside the court and the entire money of Rs.9 lacs has been returned by the co-accused to the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Varun Kumar Mishra @ Varun Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) complainant. The applicant has explained criminal history of two other cases. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation. 5.Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel. He submits that offence has been admitted by the applicant, however, he does not dispute that the compromise filed by the applicant is part of the case diary. He further submits that the investigation is still going on. 6.Considering the above aspects of the matter, the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history, the offences are triable by Magistrate, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation, compromise has been entered between the parties, compromise is part of case diary, admittedly, no money appears to have been received by the applicant in his account, perusal of the record, 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 protection to the applicant. 9.In view of the above, as an interim protection, 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 investigating officer/S.H.O. The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The investigating officer shall enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail, as directed above. 10.The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The applicant shall not leave India sans previous permission of the Court. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law/ to move application for vacation of this order. ABAIL No. 1251 of 2025 2 11.The application is allowed accordingly. November 13, 2025 kkb/ ABAIL No. 1251 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench