HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8531 of 2023 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in S.C. No.167 of 2021, under Section 395 I.P.C., Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Vide order dated 17.08.2023 co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case for the reason that the factory of the informant was constructed over Gram Sabha land and on the complaint of the applicant, demolition proceedings were initiated by district administration as a result of which, the instant malicious prosecution has been launched against the applicant. He further submits that that there is no credible evidence against him. It has also been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant undertakes to co- operate during the trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Yadav, Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raj Narayan Tiwari, Satyavrat Sahai Om Prakash Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant was granted interim order dated 17.08.2023 by which anticipatory bail subject to the condition mentioned in the order was granted, in which one of the condition was to the effect that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each date fixed. Perusal of the order sheets of the case, certified copy of which has been produced before the Court and is taken on record shows that the applicant has violated the condition and is misusing the liberty of bail. In the 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, 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. 7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the 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 merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. Interim order, if any stands vacated. 9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. September 22, 2025 S.Ali ABAIL No. 8531 of 2023 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad