Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84661 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3117 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil Kedia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Mishra,Shailendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 197 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant and other accused persons named in the F.I.R. is that that they have taken sale consideration to the tune of seventy lakh rupees by representing themselves rightful owner in possession of the property, but they did not execute the sale deed in favour of the informant. Subsequently, it came into light that applicant has no right, title or interest in the property. Learned counsel further submits that alleged payment of seventy lakh rupees was made directly to the Bank to safeguard the property of informant and not for purchase. There is no written instrument for alleged transaction of agreement to sale of property in question, no forged or tampered document of property has been procured by applicant nor alleged payment of money to the tune of seventy lakh rupees were paid to the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the Bank has issued no dues certificate on deposit of OTS amount, claimed in the F.I.R. 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 applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 6. 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. 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, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 9. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Anil Kedia, involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report 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 with the following conditions :- (i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer 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. 10. 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 :- 20.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad