HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9695 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants and Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.180/2026 under Sections 316(5), 351(3), 352 BNS and 3/7 E.C. Act, P.S. Kandharapur, District -Azamgarh, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in the abovementioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicant No.1 and her son have been falsely nominated in the F.I.R. The applicant No.1 is a fair price shop agent. The allegation against the applicant No.1, in brief, is of violating the terms and conditions of the licence. On notice being issued to the applicant No.1, her explanation was not found to be satisfactory. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicant No.1 is being targeted solely due to the fact that the applicant No.1 did not fulfill the illegitimate demand of the Supply Inspector. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that Smt. Anita Yadav and Smt. Sudha Tiwari, who are Anganwadi Workers, had made allegations that they had not been given I.C.D.S. and hot cooked food grains for the month of October, 2025 to May, 2026. Many other allegations have been made against the applicants of not supplying Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prachi Yadav, Ramendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sarita Devi And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) food grains or supplying less food grains to the ration card holders. The explanation given by the applicant No.1 was found to be false, her licence was cancelled and an appeal there-against is pending in which no interim relief has been given to the applicant No.1. Learned A.G.A. has not pointed out any criminal antecedents of the applicants. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties. 6. The applicants are mother and son. They have no criminal antecedents. The F.I.R. has been lodged supposedly on the basis of some enquiry conducted by the Supply Inspector against the applicant No.1, in which her explanation was not found to be satisfactory. The inquiry was conducted on 08.07.2026 and 10.07.2026. The approval of the District Magistrate was given on 16.07.2026 and despite this the F.I.R. has been lodged on 18.07.2026. In the opinion of the Court, there is an excessive delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Even otherwise an inquiry has already been conducted in which the fair price shop licence of applicant No.1 has been cancelled. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge applicants on anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. 9. In the event of the arrest of the applicants-Sarita Devi and Abhishek Kumar, they shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing of their personal bond and surety 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 NABAIL No. 9695 of 2026 2 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; 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 11. 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 17, 2026 A. Pandey NABAIL No. 9695 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad