Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133913 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6204 of 2025 Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 424 of 2019 under Section 420, 409 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, inspite of the fact that there is no credible evidence against him, yet the investigation officer submitted the charge in per-functionary manner without any cogent evidence against him. It has further been 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 bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 5. 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, 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. Furthermore the investigating officer, during the course of investigation has collected credible evidence against the applicant and his complicity in commission of offence is supported by oral as well as documentary evidence and therefore, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the prayer to grant anticipatory bail is refused. 7. However, it is open for the applicant to move regular bail before the concerned Court below. In case, such an application for bail is moved before the concerned Court below, then it is expected that the concerned Court below shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the necessary guidelines for grant of bail as laid down in the matter of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021), without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail. 8. With the aforesaid observation s/directions, the instant application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad