JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pandey holding brief of Sri Ashwani Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate has put in appearance and filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant, which is taken on record.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.897 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 17.12.2019 against four persons, including the applicant in furtherance of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., stating that the informant and her daughter had agreed to sell an immovable property to co-accused Mahmood Alam for an agreed consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-. Mahmood Alam paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-through a cheque dated 12.06.2019 and after receipt of the amount, registered agreement was executed regarding sell of the property on 16.06.2019 but the informant was not allowed to read the contents of the agreement and merely this much was asked by Registrar as to whether she has received the earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/-. When the co-accused Mahmood Alam did not pay the balance amount of sale consideration, the informant entered into another agreement with some other person to sell the same property for a higher sale consideration of Rs.48,00,000/-and she executed the sale deed dated 18.08.2019 in respect of the same property. The F.I.R. alleges that on the very next day i.e. on 19.08.2019, the other accused persons, including the applicant, who are sons of co-accused Mahmood Alam threatened and misbehaved with the informant and her daughter. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that on 21.08.2019 the informant had lodged an online complaint on Jansunwai Portal but the Sadar Chowki In-charge submitted a wrong report and disposed of the complaint.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in para 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that co-accused Mahmood Alam has already filed a suit for specific performance of contract bearing Original Suit No.190 of 2019, in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi and the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was lodged by the informant five days after filing of the aforesaid suit.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent, he has no criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that earlier the applicant had approached this court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.1709 of 2021, which was disposed off leaving it open for the applicant appears to applies for bail within 30 days and it was directed that the prayer shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. He has submitted that since the applicant has not surrendered before learned trial court his anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. It has also been submitted that the non-bailable warrant has already been issued against all the accused persons, although the date of issuance of warrant has not been mentioned in the instructions of the learned A.G.A.

7. Kamlesh and another versus State of Rajasthan and another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1822, was an appeal filed against an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur rejecting the application for anticipatory bail only on the ground that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of FIR, has already been rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: -

“5. We are of the view that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. High Court ought to have considered the application on merits. The fact