Liladhar Sharma Shastri v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7016 of 2025 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶1Heard Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, and perused the material placed on record.

¶2This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 104 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baldev, District Mathura.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. At this stage there is no credible evidence to establish that any amount was paid in cash to the applicant. As per the first information report, the forged letter was provided to the informant by the co-accused Shivam. The alleged cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- was also issued by co-accused Shivam. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Shivam. The applicant has not forged or manipulated any document. At this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶4Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gautam Baghel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Liladhar Sharma Shastri .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) report.

¶6Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and, in particular, the fact that at this stage there is no credible evidence to establish that any amount was paid in cash to the applicant; as per the first information report, the forged letter was provided to the informant by the co-accused Shivam and the alleged cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- was also issued by co-accused Shivam; and at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶7In the event of arrest, the applicant-Liladhar Sharma Shastri be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193(3) B.N.S.S., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶8In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶9The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. NABAIL No. 7016 of 2025

¶10The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶11The application stands disposed of. September 26, 2025 SKT/- NABAIL No. 7016 of 2025 (Vivek Varma,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad