HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7887 of 2024 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Jai Ram Pandey, 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. 520 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above- mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 18.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9373 of 2021, copy of which order is at page no.32 of the paper book. Learned counsel further submitted that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the concerned Court. Learned counsel next argued that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sarju Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) sheet. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. September 23, 2025 S.Ali ABAIL No. 7887 of 2024 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad