HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8032 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Raghubir Singh, 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. 274 of 2025 under Sections 310(2), 61(2)(a) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Shamli, District Shamli with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. It is contended 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. He further submits that no offence is made out against. It is submitted that the applicant is not named the FIR and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Rahul after one month. It is submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possessions. It is submitted that the applicant has a criminal history which has been explained in para 25 of the memo of applicant. 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 submitted that the applicant hardened criminal Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Brajpal Alias Pintu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) wanted and involved in offence under Sections 302, 307 IPC. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already been released from the charges on the sentence already undergone. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The applicant is not named in the FIR and the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Rahul after a delay of one month. The applicant is having criminal history which has been explained in para 25 of the memo of application. As per the FIR the allegation is that two persons were arrested and from their possession some countrymade pistol and cartridges were recovered by the police. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Brajpal @ Pintu involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 NABAIL No. 8032 of 2025 2 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 cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 12. 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 herein. October 13, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8032 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad