HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8080 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Amrit Shanker Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Manoj Gautam, 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. 395 of 2024, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 208 IPC, Police Station Uttar, District Firozabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that initially first information report has been lodged under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC but during investigation Section 308 IPC was also added. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants and no weapon has been assigned to anyone. It is further submitted that the applicant are having no criminal history and chargesheet in the present case has already been submitted. It is also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bharti Goswami And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that one of the injured Vijendra has received injuries on his head and there is fracture in his temporal bone. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per the first information report, the applicants along with other co- accused indulged in beating the informant side by getting them fall on the ground in which one person Vijendra received injuries on his head and there is fracture on his temporal bone and other injuries are simple in nature. The applicants are having no criminal history and chargesheet in the present case has already been submitted. 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 applicants 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 applicants- Bharti Goswami and Namita 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the NABAIL No. 8080 of 2025 2 Court concerned; (ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants. October 7, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8080 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad