Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83901 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7740 of 2024 Applicant :- Dilip Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- G.A.,Manoj Pandey Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. List revised. None appears for the informant. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 1348 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.446 of 2022, under Section 420 I.P.C., and Section 23 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he along with one Swaraj runs a Ultrasound centre without having any valid licence. Learned counsel argued that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 29.08.2022 at about 11:00 A.M. whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 31.08.2022 at about 21:36 without there being any plausible explanation of such inordinate delay. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant has no connection with the alleged Ultrasound centre, which was running in the name of Yash Diagnostic Centre either as a owner or as an employee. In fact the applicant had gone for ultrasound at the said centre and the informant without testifying the fact roped the applicant in the present case. He further submits that there is no credible evidence against him to connect him in commission of alleged offence. It has also been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant undertakes to co-operate during the 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 and argued that credible evidence has been collected against the applicant, which culminated in submission of charge sheet against the applicant and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. 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. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad