SANDEEPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4275 of 2026

Sandeep
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Anuj Srivastava, Manas            Tripathi,
                                Samarth Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pramod Shukla

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

1. Heard Sri Manas Tripathi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant,
Sri Pramod Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for
State and perused the record.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to
grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 106 of 2025, under Sections
340(2), 351(2), 336(3), 338, 318(4) BNS, P.S.- Baleni, District- Baghpat.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that the
accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. dated
05.08.2025 lodged by the informant with the allegation that he has given a
loan of Rs.6 lakhs to the co-accused Suraj Tyagi. The main accused did
not return the amount, but has fabricated a cheque of Rs.6 lakhs, which
was dishonored. The fraud has been played on the informant that a cheque
was manufactured cheque. The allegation against the accused-applicant is
that he has threatened the informant that he has no power of getting the
money back. Further submits that the accused-applicant has no criminal
history. He is the brother of main accused, as such, he has been falsely
implicated. During the investigation, the accused-applicant has not been
arrested. The charge sheet is submitted. The accused-applicant wants to
join the trial, but apprehending arrest and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4. Countering the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, learned
counsel for the informant submits that the accused-applicant has a role in
                                                     NABAIL No. 4275 of 2026
                               2


the entire incident of handing over the manufactured cheque to leveling
threats on the informant, which led to the lodging of the F.I.R and charge
sheet is submitted and hence, rejection of the application .

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

6. 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.

7. This Court while considering that the accused-applicant has not been
arrested during the investigation and further considering 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.

8. The applicant- Sandeep 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.
                                                                                           NABAIL No. 4275 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    (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
                                    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 counsel.

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

                                    10. 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 5, 2026
                                    Shivangi




Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad