HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5699 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Case taken up on mention. 2. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.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. 291 of 2025 under Sections 316 (2), 318 (2), 338, 336 (2), 340 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad 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 and another co-accused Rakesh Kumar Pandey who was the proprietor of M/s. Auto Wheelers had entered into a commercial transaction and a demand draft of Rs. One Crore was prepared for payment to the latter for supplying various articles. It is submitted that when the said co-accused asked the applicant whether the demand draft was prepared, he sent an image of the demand draft in WhatsApp. Later on, it came to the knowledge of the applicant that demand draft has already been encashed and when he approached the bank and informed that the original demand draft is lying with him, thereafter, the Bank lodged FIR. It is submitted that after investigation, it was found that the demand draft lying with the applicant is the original one. It was also Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Verma, Ashok Kumar Singh, Raman Deep Sarna, Vinod Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rahul Sahai, G.A. Vibhor Gupta .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank submits that applicant and co-accused Rakesh Kumar Pandey, in collusion with each other, got the clone demand draft encashed by the bank fraudulently. 6. Learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 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 Vibhor Gupta involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under section 193 (3) BNSS 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 before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court NABAIL No. 5699 of 2025 2 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. 5699 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad