HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8103 of 2024 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for first informant, 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. 144 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chitaipur, District Varanasi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Vide order dated 10.09.2024, co-ordinate Bench of this Court had referred the matter before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for amicable settlement between the parties and till submission of report by the Mediation Centre, no coercive was directed to be taken against the applicant. The Incharge Mediation Centre of this Court vide its report dated 21.01.2025 has reported that no settlement agreement arrived between the parties, thus mediation between the parties has failed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present case arises out of a civil dispute between the parties. He further submits that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above- mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arbind Kumar Yadav, Jitendra Rana Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Tej Bahadur Rai, Vijai Kumar Rai Akash Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 6. Perusal of the record shows that on the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the matter was referred to the mediation centre of this Court however, no settlement agreement arrived between the parties. Furthermore, specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant in commission of alleged offence. Inthe 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. Interim order, if any stands vacated. 9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. 10. The instant bail applicant is disconnected with Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6850 2024 (Deepak Singh Vs. State of U.P.). September 23, 2025 S.Ali ABAIL No. 8103 of 2024 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad