HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5546 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Case taken up on mention. 2. Heard Sri Shikhar Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, 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. 1094 of 2013 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that applicant was working as an agent on contract basis in a company known as Ramel Industries Ltd. He further submits that the said company wound up its business and fled away from the city. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons namely Kamlesh Kumar and Anil Kumar have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 14.8.2025 and 21.8.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 5144 of 2025 and 6497 of 2025 respectively. It is also submitted that the incident is of the year 2013 and the investigation is still under progress. 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 the applicant is granted anticipatory Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harshit Srivastava, Shikher Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shiv Kumar Gupta .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submits that investigation of the case is under progress and only statement of applicant remains to be recorded. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The applicant is said to be an agent in a company which wound up its business and fled away from the city without making payment of maturity amount of its investors. Similarly situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 8. 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, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration. 9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of 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. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant Shiv Kumar Gupta 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 NABAIL No. 5546 of 2025 2 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 co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 12. 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. October 9, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 5546 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad