HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8509 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 222 of 2025 under Sections 329(3), 316(4) B.N.S., Police Station Tonika City, District Ghaziabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that in the present case chargesheet has already been submitted against the applicants. It is further submitted that as per the allegation in the FIR the applicants are said to have executed sale deed in favour of their wives on the basis of general power of attorney executed by the first informant in the year 2024 in their favour. It is submitted that the said general power of attorney has already been cancelled by the first informant. It is also submitted that they had no knowledge of the cancellation of said general power of attorney as the same has not been communicated to them. It is also submitted that the applicants have no criminal history. It is also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sanjay And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that despite the cancellation of the said general power of attorney the applicants have executed the sale deed in favour of their wives. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. In the present case chargesheet has already been submitted against the applicants. The applicants have no criminal history. 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, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants 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 applicants- Sanjay and Sarjeet involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the NABAIL No. 8509 of 2025 2 Court concerned; (ii) The applicants 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 police officer; (iii) The applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants herein. October 17, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8509 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad