JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 571 of 2021, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Kant, District Shahjahanpur.

3. Facts in brief are that an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants for selling crop of paddy on the basis of forged record to make unlawful gain.

4. It is submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no any material on record to show that these applicants prepared any forged document for selling the crop of paddy on the basis of forged document. It is further submitted that by order dated 30.5.2022, the applicants were granted ad interim protection till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days. Even though the investigation has not been concluded till now but there appears apprehension of arrest against the applicants, therefore, requested for anticipatory bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it appears that in this case ad interim protection was granted in favour of the applicants by order dated 30.5.2022 till the submission of police report or 90 days whichever is earlier. Now 90 days has expired but the investigation has not been concluded and till now no police report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. Since, there is no any allegation of violation of conditions imposed by this Court during investigation against the applicants. In view of this, applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail in this case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

8. In the event of arrest of the applicants-Ramesh, Mukesh Harayan, Umesh and Vimal shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the SSP/SP concerned.

9. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.