Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122354 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5814 of 2025 Applicant :- Santosh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. This is the second criminal misc. anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The First Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11349 of 2024 (Santosh Vs. State of U.P. and another) has been dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2025. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0492 of 2023, under Sections 323, 354, 354D, 420, 467, 468, 471, 328, 120-B, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Statin Kankarkheda, District Meerut, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail till conclusion of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after lodging of the F.I.R. dated 04.08.2023, the applicant along with three others challenged the same by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15826 of 2023 (Mohit and three others Vs. State of U.P. and three others) and the Division Bench of this Court vide order order dated 03.11.2023granted interim protection whereby staying the arrest of the petitioners, till the next date of listing. It has also been submitted that the said protect ion was made available either till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier. Learned counsel further argued that thereafter charge sheet was filed and since the writ petition became infructuous, the applicant apprehends his arrest as such the applicant filed a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.No. 11349 of 2 024 (Santosh Vs. State of U.P. and another), in which the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant subject to the condition contained in that order. He further submits that case was listed on 01.07.2025 and this Court had dismissed the same for want of prosecution. Learned counsel further argued that when the case was taken up, counsel was busy in arguing the matter in Court no.68 and therefore the first anticipatory bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant was regularly attending the trial of the case pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court and in the absence of same, the applicant an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, inspite of the fact that there is no credible evidence against him. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the 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. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and has drawn attention of this Court to the order sheets of the case, which is enclosed with cognizance/summoning order, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit accompanying the anticipatory bail application and argued that the applicant after grant of interim anticipatory bail application is unnecessary lingering on the trial on the pretext of either seeking adjournment or not appearing before the trial and therefore applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.12.2024 subject to the condition mentioned in the order, in which one of the condition was to the effect that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each date fixed unless his personal appearance is exempted and perusal of the order sheets of the case shows that the applicant has violated the condition and is misusing the liberty of bail. Apart from the aforesaid, learned counsel has merely stated that he was busy in Court no.68 on account of which, he could not appear before this Court as a result of which, the first anticipatory bail application was dismissed in default but the counsel did not bring on record any document to show that he was busy in Court No.68. Furthermore, no fresh ground has been pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant in the instant second anticipatory bail application. 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. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad