HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6776 of 2025 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State, and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No. 532 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Cantt., District- Varanasi. 3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants had applied for appointment as L.T. Grade Teacher in a government college. At the time of counselling, B.A. as well as B.Ed. mark-sheets of the applicants were found to be forged. It is contended that the applicants had applied for the said post on the basis of genuine documents. The alleged mark-sheets were not verified by any competent authority. Further, the alleged mark-sheets cannot be described as a 'valuable security' as defined under Section 2(31) B.N.S. At this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicants with the offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Manju Devi, Sharmila Yadav and Santosh Kumar Pal have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 9.12.2020 and 31.7.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 8810 of 2020 and 6319 of 2024. The applicants claim parity. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Investigation is pending for more than nine years. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest and in case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gauri Shankar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ragini Devi And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, and, in particular, the fact that the alleged mark-sheets cannot be described as a 'valuable security' as defined under Section 2(31) B.N.S.S.; at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence; and, identically placed co- accused Manju Devi, Sharmila Yadav and Santosh Kumar Pal have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. In the event of arrest, the applicants- Ragini Devi, Suman Devi, Sunita Devi and Tej Pratap Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on 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 applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation. (ii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (iii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court. (iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court. (v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. (vi) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge, and (iii) NABAIL No. 6776 of 2025 2 recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same. 8. The application stands disposed of. September 1, 2025 SKT/- NABAIL No. 6776 of 2025 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad