11. The words ‘allurement’ and ‘undue influence’ to which the entire issue encircles, as defined in Section 2 of the Act, 2021, reads thus:

(a) “Allurement” means and includes offer of any temptation in the form of:

(i) any gift, gratification, easy money or material benefit either in cash or kind.

(ii) employment, free education in reputed school run by any religious body.

(iii) better lifestyle, divine displeasure or otherwise.

*** *** *** *** ***

(j) “Undue influence” means the un-conscientious use by one person of his/her power or influence over another in order to persuade the other to act in accordance with the will of the person exercising such influence.

12. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 dealt with the considerations for grant of anticipatory bail in detail. Relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), the Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 laid down parameters and factors to be considered while dealing with application for anticipatory bail:

“112.........

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made.

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence.

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice.

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences.

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern.

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”

13. Guiding principles in dealing with applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been laid down by another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1. Said concluding factors read thus:

“92. This Court, in the light of the above discussion in the two judgments, and in the light of the answers to the reference, hereby clarifies that the following need to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

92.1. Consistent with the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, a