MITHILESH KUMAR DASversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4130 of 2026

Mithilesh Kumar Das
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Anshika Agarwal, Vishal Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Vishal Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and
learned AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS
has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on
anticipatory bail in Case No. 15901 of 2018 (State Vs. Sayyed Athar and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 579 of 2017, under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Mandi, District- Saharanpur,
during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that accused
applicant has been falsely implicated in FIR dated 16.12.2017 lodged by
Mahant of an Ashram. The FIR is lodged against 16 person including the
applicant. It is alleged that the accused applicant has usurped the property
of religious trust and entered into tenancy agreement with the shops
which were the property of the trust. After investigation, the charge sheet
is submitted. The accused applicant has not been arrested during
investigation. The accused applicant wants to appear before the trial court
but apprehending arrest. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant.

5. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three
insightful judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh
                                                       NABAIL No. 4130 of 2026
                                2


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. This Court considering that the matter is prima facie of civil nature
wherein the during investigation the accused applicant has not been
arrested and 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 applicant- Mithilesh Kumar Das 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 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

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

(iii) The applicant 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.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 4130 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
                                    witnesses are present in the trial court.

                                    (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
                                    fixed, either personally or through his/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
                                    Sharad/-




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