HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8134 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandra Shekhar Sharan, 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. 244 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3), 123, 49 of B.N.S., Police Station Khadda, District Kushi Nagar 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. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next contended that there is a matrimonial dispute between the first informant and his wife. He submitted that the allegation has been leveled against the applicant that he instigated the wife of the first informant, who administered the poison on his food, as it is suspected that the applicant and wife of the first informant are in an illicit relationship. He next submits that no offence is made out against the applicant as first information report. 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramzan Ansari .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. He has further submitted that in the medical evidence of the first informant some poison has been found. The allegation against the applicant in the first information report is that he has instigated the wife of the first informant, who has administered the poison on his food, it has been suspected as the applicant and wife of first informant in an illicit relationship. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per first information report, there is a matrimonial dispute between the first informant and his wife. In the medical report of the first informant, the case of the suspected poison has been found. He submitted that there is no criminal history of the applicant. 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- Ramzan Ansari 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 :- NABAIL No. 8134 of 2025 2 (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 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. 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 herein. October 7, 2025 Neetu NABAIL No. 8134 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad