HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5344 of 2024 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sumit Jaiswal, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved by the applicants namely, Upendra Diwakar and Mohit Diwakar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 80 of 2024, under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Vide order dated 08.08.2024, co-ordinate Bench of this Court had referred the matter before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for amicable settlement between the parties and till submission of report by the Mediation Centre, no coercive was directed to be taken against the applicant. As has been observed in the order dated 05.04.2025, that no settlement agreement arrived between the parties, thus mediation between the parties has failed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Learned counsel further argued that the applicants did not abet the deceased to commit suicide and that perusal of the F.I.R. allegation demonstrates that no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. It has further been submitted that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. It was also submitted that applicants undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they 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. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Darwari Lal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sumit Jaiswal Upendra Diwakar And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) application for anticipatory bail. 6. Perusal of the record shows that on the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, the matter was referred to the mediation centre of this Court however, no settlement agreement arrived between the parties. Furthermore, specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants in commission of alleged offence. 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. 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, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. Interim order, if any stands vacated. 9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. September 23, 2025 S.Ali ABAIL No. 5344 of 2024 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad