Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70141 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10366 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd Afzal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Swaroop Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajeet Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Hari Shankar Chaurasia, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anup Swaroop Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer as well as perused the record. 3. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, namely, Mohd. Afzal and Sahadat @ Shadat in Case No. 1323 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 45 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 375 of IPC, Police Station- Nagal, District- Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. 4. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicants was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 and passed following order:- "1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record. 3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 45 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 323 I.P.C., P.S.- Nagal, District- Saharanpur. 4. After arguing for some time, applicants' counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, no case is made out for interference u/s 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that the applicants shall surrender before the concerned court within one month from today and in case, a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). 7. For the period of one month from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the concerned court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants- Sahadat and Afzal, in the above case. " 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The civil proceedings have been converted into criminal one by the informant in collusion with the authorities. The injuries are simple in nature and there is no medical corroboration of the incident. No role has been assigned to the applicants. It is further stated that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicants stands explained as the proceedings in the said case which pertains to Case Crime No. 108 of 2022 have been stayed in the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47356 of 2023 vide order dated 21.03.2024. 6. Learned counsel has further argued that the instant case has been instituted after having failed in the said Case Crime No. 108 of 2022, as such, the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that there are two injured persons i.e. informant and his son. There are 9 injuries sustained by the informant and 10 injuries sustained by his son. The applicants have misused the opportunity granted to them earlier on as they were awarded a time of one month to surrender and apply for regular bail vide order dated 30.04.2024 but they did not comply with the said order rather filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21357 of 2024 before this Court which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 8.7.2024. 8. This Court is of the view that the applicants after having failed in the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C., have filed the instant second anticipatory bail application on 18.10.2024. They have engaged in forum shopping and the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Cipla Limited and Another, (2017) 5 SCC 262, has held that forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Union of India Vs. Cipla Limited and another (supra) and also the fact that there are two injured persons, who have sustained 9 & 10 injuries, respectively, coupled by the fact that the applicants were found engaged in forum shopping, I do not find it a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. The arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated u/s 438 Cr.P.C. 10. In view of the above, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicants is rejected. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date:- 2.5.2025/Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad