HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10621 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.89 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station - Devband, District Saharanpur, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has nothing to do with the alleged offence, in spite of which the police are trying to arrest him. Initially, an FIR, registered as Case Crime No. 653 of 2021, was lodged under Section 420 IPC against the applicant by the present first informant, Dr. Pramod Kumar, wherein the applicant was protected by the Division Bench of this Court and his arrest was stayed vide order dated 16.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12191 of 2021. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted in this matter. Being aggrieved by the submission of the charge-sheet, the applicant filed an Application U/S 482 No. 12426 of 2022, wherein the proceedings of the case were stayed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2022. In order to nullify the earlier order dated 26.05.2022, the first informant, Dr. Pramod Kumar, lodged another FIR (the present FIR) against the applicant on the same facts on 28.02.2024 under Section 420 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Shekhar Pal, Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Parmod Urf Kanwarpal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) IPC. The Investigating Officer added Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC, and the charge-sheet was submitted by him on 21.05.2024. The applicant was protected by the Division Bench of this Court in the present case, and his arrest was stayed vide order dated 21.03.2024 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4429 of 2024. It is further submitted that the informant alleged that intention of the applicant is to grab his property, although till date neither the property has been grabbed by the applicant nor any such allegation has been levelled in the FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181, the second FIR on the same facts is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and he was not arrested during the course of investigation, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the application. Apart from Case Crime no.653 of 2021, lodged by the present informant Dr. Pramod Kumar, the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required by the court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the trial, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the court. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 6. I have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. 8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : NABAIL No. 10621 of 2026 2 "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non- bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." 9. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter. 10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- NABAIL No. 10621 of 2026 3 (i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant- Parmod Urf Kanwarpal, involved in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial. (iii) 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; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 11. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned court. October 8, 2026 Radhika NABAIL No. 10621 of 2026 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad