The grant of anticipatory bail is based on the consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of the accused to flee from justice, and the role of the accused in the alleged crime.

Court No. - 77

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9493 of 2022

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Dwivedi And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Anjeet Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Siddharth Nandan

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Anjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.

Zameel Ahmad Ansari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Siddharth

Nandan, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. K.P. Pathak,

learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory

bail in Case Crime No. 522 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420,

467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District-Banda, with

the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released

on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants

are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be

arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no

credible evidence against them. He further submits that the

applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case.

They are not, in any way, connected to the property in question.

The applicants are neither the beneficiary of the alleged

transaction of the sale deed executed nor have played any role

as vendee or vendor. They are also not a marginal witness of the

alleged sale deed. He further submits that subsequent to the

aforesaid FIR, the applicants have been falsely implicated in

another case being Case Crime No.536 of 2022 in which they

have approached before this Court by means of Cri. Misc. Writ

Petition No.11449 of 2022 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has pleased to grant protection to the applicants vide

order dated 29.08.2022. The applicant no.2 has criminal history

of three cases, which has been explained in paragraph No.4 to 6

of the supplementary affidavit in support of this application.

The applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and

trial and they would appear as and when required by the

investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case,

the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not

misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during

investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for

anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in

view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the

applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.

The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any

material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear,

anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre

vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held

by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail,

Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation,

antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from

justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material

against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the

accused has also to be taken into consideration.

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law

regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all

attending facts and circumstances of the case, without

expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for

anticipatory bail is made out.

The anticipatory bail application is disposed off.

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Jitendra Kumar

Dwivedi, Supash @ Shivpas Kumar @ Bauwa Maharaj and

Shiv Poojan Singh in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be

released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report,

if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court

on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two

suret