Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71058 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3206 of 2025 Applicant :- Vimla Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar,Vishnu Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present application has been filed on behalf of applicant- Vimla Devi for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.21 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Bisanda, District- Banda, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.7.2024 and the following order was passed:- "1. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Garg, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri R.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for State. 2. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case Crime No.21 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Bisanda, District Banda. 3. After arguing for some time, applicant's counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. 4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, no case is made out for interference U/s 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court within one month from today and in case a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). 6. For the period of one month from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above case." 5. As the said application was withdrawn by the counsel for applicant and prayer was made for granting one month's time to surrender before the court concerned. A time extension application was also moved by the counsel on 21.9.2024, which was also rejected by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has sated that the co-accused persons, namely Ram Lakhan Gautam and Sampat Singh have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.3.2025 and 24.7.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. Nos.2844 of 2024 and 6401 of 2024, respectively. As such, the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The said order has been filed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit filed with instant anticipatory bail application. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA have vehemently opposed the instant anticipatory bail application on the ground that case of the applicant is at different footing to the aforesaid co-accused persons as she is the main person who had impersonated the owner of the said property, as such, she is not entitled for bail. There is no provision for filing second anticipatory bail application after failing in the first application. The second anticipatory bail application tantamounts to forum shopping. 9. Learned A.G.A. has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Union of India vs. Cipla Limited and Another, (2017) 5 SCC 262, whereby forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that it was the applicant who had impersonated the owner of the said property, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 10. The instant anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. 12. After this order was dictated in open Court, the counsel for applicant again prayed for withdrawal of the instant anticipatory bail application. Cost: 13. The conduct of the counsel for applicant in filing a second anticipatory bail application even after the first anticipatory bail application had been withdrawn is deprecated and a cost of Rs.1000/- is imposed on him, which shall be deposited before the High Court Legal Service Committee, within a period of one week from today. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad