PRADEEP ARORAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4325 of 2026

Pradeep Arora
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                   :   Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the accused-
applicant, 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. 576 of 2021, under Sections
63/65 of Copy Right Act, 1957, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffar
Nagar.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that on
13.09.2021, the F.I.R. is lodged against the accused-applicant under the
provisions of Section 63 and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957, with the
allegation that the shop of the applicant when inspected, was recovered
with 53 pairs of fake relaxo footwear. During the investigation, the
accused-applicant has not been arrested. The charge sheet is submitted.
The accused-applicant wants to appear before the trial court, but
apprehends arrest and 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
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
                                                       NABAIL No. 4325 of 2026
                                2


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 while considering the role of accused-applicant and he 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.

7. The applicant- Pradeep Arora 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
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
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 4325 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    fixed, either personally or through his 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
                                    Shivangi




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