SURENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 2378 of 2026

Surendra Singh
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                        :    Kamlesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                   :    G.A.

Court No. - 72
                 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned Advocate, holding brief of
Mr. Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Shiv Dutt
Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Case Crime No.449 of 2024, under Sections 319 (2), 318(4), 338, 336(3),
340 (2), 61 (2) of BNS, Police Station: Cantt., District- Varanasi, with the
prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further submitted that the co-accused Rishikant Dubey has already been
granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated
13.11.2025. The applicant is neither vendor nor vendee nor a witness to
the alleged fraudulent transaction. It is further submitted that the applicant
is not named in the first information report and he is not the beneficiary of
the alleged fraudulent execution of sale-deed. It was also submitted that
applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as
and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated
that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the
liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey
all conditions of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
                                                     NABAIL No. 2378 of 2026
                               2


anticipatory bail and submitted that during investigation, the applicant has
prepared forged Aadhar Card and has actively participated in the said
fraudulent transaction. The applicant is neither vendor nor vendee nor a
witness to the alleged fraudulent transaction.

5. It is apparent that the applicant was not named in the FIR and his name
has surfaced during investigation.

6. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
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.

7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding
anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role
of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Surendra Singh involved in the
aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a
personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear
before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court
concerned;

(ii) The applicant 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer;

(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the
liberty of bail.
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 2378 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the
                                    Court concerned.

                                    10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty
                                    to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted
                                    to the applicant.



                                                                                    (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Rama Kant




Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad