Sitaram And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4103 of 2026

Sitaram And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Pramod Kumar Singh, Tripathi B.G.Bhai

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 71

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Learned AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Criminal Complaint No. 2692 of 1994, arising out of Case Crime No.20 of 1993, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Itwa, District- Siddharth Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in the year 1993, the informant has lodged the FIR. The accused applicant as well as informant both are purchasers of the property for value. There is dispute as to the boundaries. The civil suit was already pending when the FIR was lodged. After investigation, the police has submitted final report. The informant has moved protest petition which was allowed and final report was rejected. The accused applicants have been summoned. In the civil suit, they have entered into compromise. The accused applicants are bona fide purchasers. They have no criminal history. The summons made by the Magistrate was challenged before this Court in inherent jurisdiction. The stay was operative but the Application U/S 482 CrPC was dismissed in default. The applicants want to appear before the trial court but apprehending arrest. Hence, seek anticipatory bail.

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

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 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. Considering that the matter to be prima facie civil in nature, 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 applicants- Sitaram and Parmatma 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 applicants 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 applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through 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

Krishna*