HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1981 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mithilesh Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dharmveer Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 355 of 2025 under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 109, 351(2), 117(2), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report and his name was surfaced in confessional statement of arrested co-accused person. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of eight cases which have been explained in bail application as well as in supplementary affidavit. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant has been identified in the CCTV footage and the injured has received 12 injuries on his person and some injuries are grievous in nature. 5. As per first information report, two named and ten unknown persons are said to have assaulted husband of the first informant. The victim has received multiple injuries. The injured has not taken the name of the applicant in his statement. Name of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Masoom Alam, Shivam Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dharmaveer Singh, G.A., Suraj Kumar Prajapati Suraj Goswami .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant has been surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co- accused and the applicant has not been assigned any specific role of assault. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. 6. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Suraj Goswami involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. March 18, 2026 Virendra NABAIL No. 1981 of 2026 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad