HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6668 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, 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. 56 of 2025 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Bhawnapur, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above- mentioned case. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and as per the FIR, he has executed a sale deed on the basis of a power of attorney in favour of other accused persons, however, on the date of execution of sale deed, the power of attorney in his favour was in existence but on the same day, the same was cancelled by the first informant at Haridwar. The information of which was sent to the applicant after about a month. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant. 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 will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Khalid Hasan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant acted fraudulently knowing that the power of attorney in his favour has been cancelled by the first informant. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per allegations in the FIR, applicant executed the sale deed on the basis of power of attorney in favour of other accused persons on 20.2.2023 but the power of attorney was already cancelled by the first informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the notice sent by the first informant to the applicant in which it is mentioned that on 20.2.2023, he cancelled the power of attorney which was in his favour. It was also submitted that the applicant received the said information after a month of execution of sale deeds. 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 also evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding 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 Khalid Hasan 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 that he would appear NABAIL No. 6668 of 2025 2 before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (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 would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) 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 8, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 6668 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad