HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9613 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Prakash Tiwari along with Sri Ram Babu Singh, the Learned counsels for the informant, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.184 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 338, 339, 340(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, P.S.- Shivali, District- Kanpur Dehat, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. At the very outset, the Learned A.G.A. raised an objection by submitting that the applicant No.2 has not explained his complete criminal antecedents as is required under the provisions of Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 sub-Rule (7) of the Rules of the Court. 4. On being confronted with this objection, the Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this application for the applicant No.2 with liberty to file a fresh application explaining in detail the criminal antecedents of the applicant No.2 in view of the provisions of Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 sub-Rule (7) of the Rules of the Court. 5. Taking into account the prayer made by the Learned counsel for the applicants, this application so far as it relates to the applicant No.2 stands dismissed as withdrawn with the above-mentioned liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : P.K. Singh, Rajeev Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Babu Singh, Sanjay Prakash Tiwari Uday Pratap Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Certified copies, if any, for the applicant No.2, may be returned to the Learned counsel for the applicants. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant no.1 is the son of Shashi Bhushan Singh, the co-accused. The applicant is merely a marginal witness of the disputed sale deed. He is not a direct beneficiary of the transaction in question. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. 8. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has contended that applicant no.1 being the son of the co-accused Shashi Bhushan Singh was aware of the fact that the fake sale deed was being executed for property which was not recorded in the name of Shashi Bhushan Singh. The applicant has witnessed the sale in question and may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant has not been able to point out any criminal antecedents of the applicant. 9. The Learned A.G.A. has also supported the contentions made by the Learned counsel for the informant. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 11. Applicant no.1 is stated to be only a marginal witness of the sale deed executed by his father. There appears to be no direct allegation against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that no money which may be part of the sale consideration has been received by applicant No. 1 in his account. The case of the applicant stands on a separate footing from that of co-accused Shashi Bhushan Singh. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. 12. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 13. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 14. In the event of the arrest of the applicant No.1- Uday Pratap Singh, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station NABAIL No. 9613 of 2026 2 House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:- i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 16. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case. September 30, 2026 Sachin NABAIL No. 9613 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad