HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6236 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party and Sri B.P. Maurya, 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. 164 of 2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the incident relates to the year 2008 and chargesheet was submitted in the year 2014. The applicant had earlier approached this Court and this Court passed an order in the year 2013 restraining the police from arresting the applicant till credible evidence is collected against him. It is further submitted that the applicant had no knowledge about submission of the chargesheet as there was no service of summon or bailable warrant on him. It is further submitted that the applicant came to know about the pendency of the present case when non bailable warrant were issued against him. It is submitted that as per the FIR, the allegation against the applicant is that he sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to co-accused Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar Mishra, Rahul Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ramesh Kumar Shukla Mata Prasad Prajapati .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Abdul Gafur Ansari on the basis of forged documents as the applicant was Assistant Manager at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that he has already retired from the services of the bank. It is also submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It was also 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 would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned AGA opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submit that it was well within the knowledge of the applicant that a case is pending against him and he kept avoiding the process of the Court due to which, trial has been delayed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The incident relates to the year 2008 and chargesheet was submitted in the year 2014. The applicant had approached this Court and this Court passed an order in the year 2013 restraining the police from arresting the applicant till credible evidence is collected against him. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no service of summon on the applicant and that he came to know about the case in 2025 itself when non bailable warrant was issued against him. As per the FIR, the allegation against the applicant is that while he was posted as Assistant Mangar, he sanctioned a loan in favour of co-accused Abdul Gafur Ansari on the basis of forged documents. 7. 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. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding NABAIL No. 6236 of 2025 2 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. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant Mata Prasad Prajapati involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail 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 shall not misused the liberty of bail. (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 shall not seek any adjournment (iv) The applicant would appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed either in person or through counsel; (v) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. 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. 6236 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad