HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8541 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.312 of 2026, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court taking note of the fact that the applicant has not explained his criminal antecedents and had granted liberty to the applicant to move a fresh bail application after explaining the criminal antecedents as are required under Chapter XVIII Rule 18 sub-Rule (7) of the Rules of the Court. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court which is taken on record. 5. The explanation of the criminal antecedents that has been given in the supplementary affidavit and the affidavit accompanying the bail application, is not denied by learned AGA. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is merely a marginal witness to the disputed sale deed executed by one Nazir in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Parasnath Kushwaha .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) favor of Nathuni Prasad. The said Nazir is said to be a fictitious person and the allegation against the applicant is of witnessing the transaction between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that the applicant is not a beneficiary of the sale deed in question and he has only been implicated by the informant and the police as he is a witness to the sale deed. The applicant has not received any money or any other consideration in his account. He appears to have become the target of some dishonest persons and could have been the star witness for the transaction but has been arrayed as an accused. 8. Learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail and have contended that the applicant and the co- accused Rajendra Kushwaha were both the witnesses to the sale deed. During investigation, it has been found that the sale consideration was deposited by the co-accused Nathuni Prasad, who is the vendee in the account of Rajendra Kushwaha. This fact clearly establishes the complicity of the witnesses to the sale deed in the false transaction. 9. Learned counsels have denied the explanation given by the applicant with respect to his criminal antecedents. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 11. The applicant is said to be a marginal witness in sale deed. No Part of the sale consideration is said to have been received by the applicant. The sale consideration has been received in the account of the co-accused Rajendra Kushwaha. Other than the applicant being a witness to the sale deed, he is neither the beneficiary nor said to be in any manner interested in the property. 12. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that co-accused Rajendra Kushwaha has been arrested and is in jail and and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. NABAIL No. 8541 of 2026 2 13. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 14. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 15. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Parasnath Kushwaha, 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 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; 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 17. 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 8, 2026 S.A. NABAIL No. 8541 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad