HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7802 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Yadv, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Uma Shankar Mishra, 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. 284 of 2025 under Sections 137 (1)(b), 61 (2), 351 (3) of B.N.S., Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and the only allegation against them is that some exchange of money took place between the first informant and the other co-accused persons in front of them. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, new born baby of the first informant was kept in wrongful confinement by the co-accused Dr. Javed and Dr. Reena Chaudhary for some ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the said baby has already been recovered. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. It is also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Kumar, Pavanesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Roopa And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. From perusal of the FIR, there is allegation that Dr. Javed and Dr. Reena Chaudhary kept the new born baby of the first informant in wrongful confinement for some ulterior motive. Further allegation is that some transaction of money took place between the first informant and the other co-accused persons in front of the applicants. It is also submitted that the new born baby has already been recovered. 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 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 applicants 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 applicants Roopa and Suraj Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the NABAIL No. 7802 of 2025 2 Court concerned; (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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants. October 8, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 7802 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad