Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82721 Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18151 of 2021 Applicant :- Barrun Soleja Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gopal Misra Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the informant / opposite party No.2 despite taking the case in revised list. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 750 of 2021, under Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Chakeri, District - Kanpur Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. According to prosecution version, a builder agreement was executed regarding property of informant between the informant and the company of father of applicant, wherein, flats and multi story complex was to be constructed by the company and as per agreement the informant has to be given 40% of the proceeds of the property but it was not paid. It was also alleged in the first information report that said company has made construction against the terms of said agreement. Learned counsel submitted that applicant is son of co-accused Mohd. Jawed Soleja, who is Director of the said company. Applicant is not a Director of the company and he has no concern with business of the company. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and no offence is made out against applicant. Earlier making similar allegations, informant has filed a civil suit before the civil court Kanpur Nagar, which has been dismissed. It has been further submitted that in the agreement between the parties there is an arbitration clause and thus, the dispute was referred to arbitrator and matter is pending but later on informant has filed an application before this Court for appointment of a new arbitrator. Learned counsel submitted that construction was completed and payments were also made in accordance with the agreement and that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The case was registered by moving an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Co-accused Mohd. Jawed Soleja, who is Director of the said company, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and case of the applicant is on better footing than him. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and 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 would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that said agreement was violated and not a single flat or shop was handed over to the informant / complainant. The accused persons were having dishonest intention since beginning. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the company of the applicant has caused huge financial loss to the informant. 5. 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, 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. 6. In the instant case, considering the settled principles 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 merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 7. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 8. In the event of arrest of the applicant - Barrun Soleja 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required; (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 investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad