KARMVEERversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

 CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
                  BNSS No. - 8756 of 2026

Karmveer
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)           :   Manoj Kumar Mishra, Rahul Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      :   G.A.

Court No. - 72
                  HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and
perused the record.

2. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.112 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 467,
468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station - Ecotech-1, District Gautam Buddh
Nagar, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

3. First anticipatory bail application being Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application U/S 482 BNSS No.5187 of 2025 was dismissed for want of
prosecution by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2026

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has nothing
to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest
the applicant. It is further contended that the alleged incident is said to have
taken place between 05.05.2011 and 23.09.2022, whereas the FIR was
lodged after a long time on 20.12.2024. It is alleged by the informant that the
applicant and co-accused Sotash executed a second sale deed to the first
informant, whereas they had already executed a sale deed on 13.02.2012 to
Briajanand Nagar in respect of the same property. Learned counsel for the
applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to page no. 78 of the
application and submitted that the applicant had not executed the sale deed
on 13.02.2012 and that the same was executed by the co-accused Sotash,
therefore, no offence against the present applicant is made out. It is further
                                                          NABAIL No. 8756 of 2026
                                  2


contended that the FIR was lodged against the applicant and 5 other co-
accused. The other co-accused Vinod Bhati @ Vinod Kumar, who is
nominated in the FIR, has been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 in NABAIL No. 5440 of
2025. The other co-accused Sotash has been granted regular bail by another
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025. Copies of the
aforesaid orders have been appended along with the supplementary affidavit
dated 17.09.2026. It is further contended that the applicant moved the first
anticipatory bail application, which was dismissed for want of prosecution
vide order dated 12.08.2026. However, he was released on interim
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2026 in first bail
application. During the pendency of the first anticipatory bail application,
the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, and the learned
court concerned took cognizance of the offence on 11.08.2025. The
applicant has not misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail, and he was
regularly appearing before the court concerned. No charge has been framed
in the present case. Since the investigation has been completed by the
Investigating Officer and the charge-sheet has been submitted by him, and
the learned court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence, therefore,
custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required in the present
case. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. Learned counsel
for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant undertakes to cooperate
during trial and shall appear as and when required by the court concerned. It
has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail,
he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the trial, and shall
abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

6. I have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

7. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no
allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the
investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant.

8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
                                                             NABAIL No. 8756 of 2026
                                   3


Court has held that :

     "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a
     Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had
     been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance
     or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed
     in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It
     has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court
     is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of
     arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of
     arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under
     Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall
     not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due
     service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii)
     above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

     12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles
     under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para
     (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-
     bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of
     investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is
     released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
     during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient
     to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set
     out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has
     not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest
     and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
     be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not
     agree more with this."

9. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory
bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation,
role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a
fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the
matter.

10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following
directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Karmveer involved in the
aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of
trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 8756 of 2026
                                                                     4


                                    of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

                                    (ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
                                    concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.

                                    (iii) 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; and

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

                                    11. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
                                    Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
                                    appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
                                    applicant, before the concerned court.



                                                                                         (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad