HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3783 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. This case has been taken up on a mention. 2. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Yogendra Singh, 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. 354 of 2021, under Sections 420, 379, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. It is contended 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. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the main allegation is against Nitin Chaudhari. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the applicant is that he was in connivance and in collusion with said Nitin Chaudhari. It is also submitted that co-accused Sachin Kumar has already been granted regular bail by this court. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Avneesh Tripathi, G.A., Gaurav Dwivedi Anuj Panwar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant was a company supervisor and the role of the applicant is lesser than that of Nitin Chaudhari. He further submits that Sachin Kumar has been granted regular bail as he has no supervisory power and his case is distinguishable from the case of the present applicant, however, he does not dispute the fact that the main allegation is against Nitin Chaudhari whose anticipatory bail application has already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. As per first information report, main allegation is against Nitin Choudhari and allegation against the applicant is that he was in connivance and in collusion with him. Another accused Sachin Kumar has already been granted regular bail by this Court. 9. 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, the 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. 10. 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 merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. NABAIL No. 3783 of 2025 2 12. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Anuj Panwar involved 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 Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (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 cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 13. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein. October 9, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 3783 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad