Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19504 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 392 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajeev Garg Alias Rajeev Kumar Garg Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Despite order of this Court, learned A.G.A. has not received instructions in the matter. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging her on bail in Case Crime No.32 of 2006, under Sections 420, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant F.I.R. has been lodged through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. As per F.I.R. allegation, applicant committed fraud and sold the property in favour of the informant. The applicant challenged the F.I.R. and investigation by filing Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.6579 of 2006 (Rajeev Kumar Garg Vs. State of U.P.). The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.06.2006 observed that the investigation shall go on and the applicant shall not be arrested till the conclusion of investigation. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on 22.06.2006 and the court took cognizance against the applicant. Counsel for the applicant next submits that thereafter parties entered into compromise and filed compromise application in civil proceedings and civil suit has been decreed in terms of compromise. The civil suit was decreed ex-parte vide order dated 23.4.2008. It is next submitted that criminal proceedings are going on but he has no knowledge about the same. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 482 B.N.S.S. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The applicant had knowledge regarding summons and he did not appear before the trial court deliberately and not participating in criminal proceedings. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 6. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. 7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. The argument raised by the counsel for the applicant is all related to factual aspects which cannot be examined by this Court and trial proceeding is pending since 2006. The applicant did not appear before the trial court since last 18 years and charge sheet has been submitted by the I.O. No interference is warranted by this Court. 8. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. 10. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 11. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad