HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4275 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri Manas Tripathi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Sri Pramod Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 106 of 2025, under Sections 340(2), 351(2), 336(3), 338, 318(4) BNS, P.S.- Baleni, District- Baghpat. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. dated 05.08.2025 lodged by the informant with the allegation that he has given a loan of Rs.6 lakhs to the co-accused Suraj Tyagi. The main accused did not return the amount, but has fabricated a cheque of Rs.6 lakhs, which was dishonored. The fraud has been played on the informant that a cheque was manufactured cheque. The allegation against the accused-applicant is that he has threatened the informant that he has no power of getting the money back. Further submits that the accused-applicant has no criminal history. He is the brother of main accused, as such, he has been falsely implicated. During the investigation, the accused-applicant has not been arrested. The charge sheet is submitted. The accused-applicant wants to join the trial, but apprehending arrest and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 4. Countering the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant submits that the accused-applicant has a role in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Srivastava, Manas Tripathi, Samarth Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pramod Shukla Sandeep .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the entire incident of handing over the manufactured cheque to leveling threats on the informant, which led to the lodging of the F.I.R and charge sheet is submitted and hence, rejection of the application . 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. 6. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk. 7. This Court while considering that the accused-applicant has not been arrested during the investigation and further considering the gravity of accusation and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail. 8. The applicant- Sandeep involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions :- (i) 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 or tamper with the evidence. NABAIL No. 4275 of 2026 2 (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. May 5, 2026 Shivangi NABAIL No. 4275 of 2026 3 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad