SITARAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4103 of 2026

Sitaram And Another
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Pramod Kumar            Singh,     Tripathi
                                B.G.Bhai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
                    HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and
Learned AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS
has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to release them on
anticipatory bail in Criminal Complaint No. 2692 of 1994, arising out of
Case Crime No.20 of 1993, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-
B IPC, P.S.- Itwa, District- Siddharth Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in the year
1993, the informant has lodged the FIR. The accused applicant as well as
informant both are purchasers of the property for value. There is dispute
as to the boundaries. The civil suit was already pending when the FIR was
lodged. After investigation, the police has submitted final report. The
informant has moved protest petition which was allowed and final report
was rejected. The accused applicants have been summoned. In the civil
suit, they have entered into compromise. The accused applicants are bona
fide purchasers. They have no criminal history. The summons made by
the Magistrate was challenged before this Court in inherent jurisdiction.
The stay was operative but the Application U/S 482 CrPC was dismissed
in default. The applicants want to appear before the trial court but
apprehending arrest. Hence, seek anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
                                                      NABAIL No. 4103 of 2026
                               2


applicants.

5. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three
insightful judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh
Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565,
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is
consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory
bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to
evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and
gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or
exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of
the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the
accused and flight risk.

6. Considering that the matter to be prima facie civil in nature, the gravity
of accusation and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight
risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation
and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

7. The applicants- Sitaram and Parmatma involved in the aforesaid
case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer,
as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with following conditions :-

(i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court
on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and
(iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 4103 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    (iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall
                                    not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
                                    witnesses are present in the trial court.

                                    (v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date
                                    fixed, either personally or through their counsel.

                                    8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
                                    cancellation of bail.

                                    9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
                                    determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as
                                    an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely
                                    free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
                                    unaffected by anything said in this order.



                                                                                               (Avnish Saxena,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Krishna*




Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad