Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108168 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3382 of 2024 Applicant :- Sompal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 705 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Budaun, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory 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. It has further been submitted that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that 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 will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A.has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. He submits that accused applicant not abiding with the conditions imposed upon him. 5. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.04.2024 has granted interim anticipatory bail to the accused- applicant. 6.The interim order granted by this Court goes to show that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail subject to the conditions contained in that order and one of the condition was that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required. Counsel for the applicant has failed to show that applicant is appearing before the court concerned regularly. There is no material to show that the applicant is appearing regularly before the trial court. This shows that the applicant is not complying with the terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. Furthermore, perusal of the record also shows that there is specific allegations against the applicant. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, has held 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. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 AS Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad