HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4259 of 2025 Court No. - 44 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Ram Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ramesh Kumar Madheshia, learned A.G.A. for the State-Opposite Party and perused the record. 2. Anticipatory bail application (first) filed by the present applicants was rejected vide order dated 04.11.2020. That order reads as below: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants - Surendra Kumar, Arun Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Rai and Suresh Kumar Bind, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2020, under Sections - 419, 420 & 406 I.P.C., Police Station – Sigra, District-Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that false allegation at the instance of an agent appointed by the company have been levelled against the applicant whereas none of the depositors have made any complaint against them. The correctness of the allegations made in the FIR may remain to be examined during investigation i.e. whether the depositors had any complaint or whether they have been paid out by the Company. In so far as the FIR reveals the cognizable offence that has been lodged by the agent of the Company may itself not be decisive as to the competence of the FIR, at this stage. No good ground made for grant of anticipatory bail. In view of such facts, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in such matter. However, in the event of regular bail being applied by the applicant, the same may be decided on its own merit without being prejudiced by any observation Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Kumar Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arun Kumar Singh And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) made in this order. Present application stands rejected." 3. Almost five years have passed since then. Apparently, charge-sheet was submitted amongst others, against the applicants on which cognizance may have been taken in the year 2020, itself. 4. In such circumstances, the present applicant has filed the second anticipatory bail application in the month of May, 2025 i.e. more than four years after rejection of the first anticipatory bail application. It may also be noted, in the meanwhile the present applicants further filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.4959 of 2021. It came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2024. That order appears to have attained finality. 5. Well after dismissal of the above application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the present second anticipatory bail application has been filed. To test the bonafide of the present applicants, on 02.02.2025 Supplementary Affidavit was called, to disclose participation of the applicants during investigation. Supplementary Affidavit filed in compliance to that order does not make a whisper if the applicants joined the investigation. It only brings on record the order sheet of the learned court below disclosing that the matter has remained pending since 2021. Obviously the applicants neither appeared in the Court nor applied for regular bail. 6. On the other hand, it is also clear that non-bailable warrant was issued against the present applicants by the learned court below. They are being pressed since 10.03.2025. 7. It is only after the non-bailable warrants issued against the applicants by the learned court below, they may have thus felt compelled to file the present second anticipatory bail application, in the month of May, 2025. 8. Bail remains a discretion to be granted by the Court. While the Court may have considered the prayer made to grant anticipatory bail, at present, no favourable circumstance is shown to exist as may give confidence to the Court that the applicants would participate in the trial, if discretion is exercised in their favour. Their only concern is to avoid non-bailable warrant, already issued. Once the applicants are seen to have delayed trial and for almost four years they have not appeared on a single date, at present, NABAIL No. 4259 of 2025 2 I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. It may be noted, proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. also appear to have been initiated against them. 9. Insofar as the applicants apprehend violation of their liberty, it is left open to the applicants to appear before the learned court below and seek recall of the non-bailable warrant and apply for regular bail. To that extent, any observation made in this order may not prejudice the learned court below and any application for bail filed by the applicants may be considered on its merits. 10. Accordingly, the present second anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. September 19, 2025 Anurag/- NABAIL No. 4259 of 2025 3 (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad