Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90447 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4780 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Sharma,Nilesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Imran Ullah,Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Vineet Vikram Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. ORDER ON RECALL APPLICATION NO.5 OF 2025 1. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, the instant recall application for recalling the order dated 06.03.2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. ORDER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION 2. Heard Sri Vinod Kant, learned Senior Counsel assistd by Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for first informant, Sri Chandan 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. 1230 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Noida Sector 39, District Gautambudh Nagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Vide order dated 17.05.2024 co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, however that interim order dated was vacated vide order dated 06.03.2025. 5. Apart from merit issues, learned counsel further argued that there is no credible evidence against him. It has also been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant undertakes to co-operate during the 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. have opposed the anticipatory bail and argued that credible evidence is against the applicant and therefore the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 7. In the 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. 8. 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, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad