HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6417 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.P. 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. 30 of 2025 under Sections 61 (2), 336 (3), 338, 340 (2), 318 (4), 319 (2), 351 (2)(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly 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 and no offence under section 338 BNS is made out against him. He further submits that applicant is neither the vendor nor the vendee or witness to the alleged sale deed. It is submitted that allegation against the applicant is that he introduced the first informant to co-accused Ram Sahai who executed a sale deed in favour of the first informant but due to non payment of complete consideration amount, possession of the said land was not given to the first informant. He further submits that criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashi Kant Upadhyay, Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harpal Alias Arvind Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 bail, he 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 A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submits that the sale deed has not been executed by the original Ram Sahai but a person impersonating as Ram Sahai. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. As per the FIR, allegation against the applicant is that he introduced the first informant to co-accused Ram Sahai for purchase of a immovable property. The applicant is neither the vendor nor the vendee or any witness to the alleged sale deed. Criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today. 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 Harpal Alias Arvind Singh 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 NABAIL No. 6417 of 2025 2 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 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 8, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 6417 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad