HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7203 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, 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. 245 of 2025 under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 336 (3), 338, 340 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It is contended by learned Senior counsel for the applicant that no offence is made out against the applicant. He further submits that applicant is a practicing advocate in Ghazipur District Court. It is also submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, the applicant is said to have filed vakakalatnama on behalf of Afza Ansari wife of late Mukhtar Ansari in the Court. It is alleged that the signatures of Afza Ansari who is absconding are forged. It is further contended that right to challenge the signature on vakalatnama is of the party who has executed it. It is further submitted that the signatures on the vakalatnama of Afza Ansari has been matched with her old signatures. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Kumar Singh, Prem Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Liyakat Ali Advocate .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 anticipatory bail and submits that it has been submitted that the applicant filed his vakalatnama by getting forged signatures of the executant Afza Ansari and the F.S.L. report found the signatures to be forged. 5. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that recent signature of the executant has not been obtained for matching it with the signatures on the vakalatnama in the F.S.L. report. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. As per the FIR, the applicant who is an advocate is said to have filed vakalatnama in the Court of the executant Afza Ansari who is absconding. It is submitted that old signatures of the executant has been sent to F.S.L. for matching the same with the signatures on vakalatnama. It is also submitted that right to challenge the signatures on vakalatnama lies with the executant and not with any third party. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant Liyakat Ali Advocate involved NABAIL No. 7203 of 2025 2 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 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. 12. 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 15, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 7203 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad