HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7117 of 2024 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. List revised. None appears for the applicant to press this anticipatory bail application. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Chandan Singh learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 312 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Vide order dated 20.08.2024, co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. It has been averred in the present anticipatory bail application that as per allegations in the First Information Report it is alleged that co-accused have approached the informant for providing loan for construction of the house and two cheques containing signature of the informant was received and subsequently notice was received from the ICICI bank with regard to recovery of the loan. Later on it was found that co-accused, Prashant Kumar has withdrawn loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-. As per the allegations, sum of Rs. 50,000/- was transferred in the account of the applicant. It has been averred that no amount has been transferred in the account of the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant and the investigation in the matter is still going on. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Shukla, Ratnesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Kumar Tiwari, G.A. Pradeep Kumar Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. further argued that credible evidence has been collected during the investigation, which has culminated in submission of charge sheet dated 17.11.2024. 6. Perusal of the record shows that specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant in commission of offence. The investigating officer, during the course of investigation found the complicity of the applicant in commission of offence is supported by oral as well as documentary evidence and after collecting credible evidence against the applicant submitted charge sheet. Furthermore, 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. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) September 23, 2025 S.Ali ABAIL No. 7117 of 2024 2 Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad