HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9059 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicants, 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. 1112 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali, District -Deoria, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants are son and daughter of the accused Maya Devi and the grandson and daughter of the accused Urmila Devi. The applicants along with their minor brother Shivanand and co-accused Maya Devi and Urmila Devi are stated to have executed a fake sale deed of a property belonging to the informant and his brother. The Learned counsel for applicant further contends that the applicants and the co-accused Shivanand, who are stated to have executed the sale deed, had no knowledge with respect to the said deed being forged. Relying upon Paragraph Nos. 15 & 17 of the affidavit, the Learned counsel for the applicants stated that they were told by their mother and grandmother that their signatures are required to sell some land and they had no knowledge that their mother and grandmother had executed some forged sale deed. The applicant No. 1 is permanently disabled, having a locomotor disability, and applicant No. 2 is a young woman, aged about 23 years. They have no criminal antecedents. 4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has contended that the applicants are equally involved in the execution of the sale deed. He further contends that forged Khatauni was prepared to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Kumar Shukla, Shivam Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramu Tiwari And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) demonstrate that the applicants and the other accused were owners of the property in question. No indulgence may be given to the applicants. The learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any criminal history of the applicants. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 7. The applicants are the son and daughter of the co-accused Maya Devi. The forged sale deed has been executed by the three children of Maya Devi and her mother Urmila Devi. In the prima facie opinion of the Court, contentions raised in Paragraph Nos. 15 & 17 of the affidavit appear to be plausible. Applicants have no criminal antecedents. Their case stands on a different footing to that of the co-accused Maya Devi and Urmila Devi. 8. 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 applicants on anticipatory bail. 9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. 10. In the event of the arrest of the applicants -Ramu Tiwari and Amrita Tiwari, they 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 12. 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 11, 2026 Sartaj NABAIL No. 9059 of 2026 2 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad