HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8295 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Prtiti Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0089 of 2025 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no loss has been occasioned by the alleged act of the applicant. It is further submitted that 17 persons have been named in the FIR alleging that 17 persons including the applicant committed fraud in the loan accounts of 20 loanees to the tune of Rs. 50.40 lakh. It is further submitted that loanees have already deposited the amount withdrawn by them and they are also paying interest. Therefore, no loss has been occasioned to the Bank. It is also submitted that applicant has suffered punishment in the departmental inquiry and he has been demoted against which, departmental appeal is pending. It is further submitted that investigation is under progress and there is no likelihood that applicant will flee away from justice. It is also submitted that applicant is regularly attending his duties in the bank. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Priti Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramchandra Prasad .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) anticipatory bail and submits that fraud has been committed by the applicant in the loan account of various loanees. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per the FIR, applicant and 16 other named accused persons have committed forgery in the loan accounts of 20 loanees. It has been submitted that loanees have already deposited the amount withdrawn by them and they are also paying interest. The applicant is regularly attending his duties and there is no likelihood that he would flee from justice. 7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant Ramchandra Prasad involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, till submission of police report under section 193 (3) BNSS, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any NABAIL No. 8295 of 2025 2 police officer; (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. October 13, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 8295 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad