HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8071 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Kamalesh Kumar Nishad and Sri Ram Awadh Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 359 of 2024, under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 131, 191(2), 191(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj 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 an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that specific role of causing incised wound on chest and head of the injured Sachhidanand and Ramashish is on the co-accused Sanoj and apart from that other injuries of the injured person are of simple in nature. It is submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. 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, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per first information, allegation is that the applicant along with other co-accused indulged in assaulting the informant side in which two persons received injuries on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamalesh Kumar Nishad, Ram Awadh Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Alias Ram Mohan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) their vital part by sharp-edged weapon. As per the statement of the injured persons Sachhidanand and Ramashish specific role has been assigned to accused Sanoj for causing incised wound on chest and head and none of the injuries are dangerous to life. 7. 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, the 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. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle 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 on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Rahul Alias Ram Mohan involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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. 11. 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. October 7, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8071 of 2025 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad