Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26068 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11119 of 2024 Applicant :- Ankit And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitendra Singh,Ram Krishna Yadav,Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunit Kumar,Yatish Kumar Dwivedi Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Krishna Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Yatish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in Sessions Trial No.91 of 2023 arising out of Complaint No.44 of 2022, under Sections 323, 392, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Kalpi, District Jalaun, during pendency of trial. 3. Instant complaint lodged by opposite party No.2 is totally false and baseless and not supporting by any evidence and the same has been lodged due to previous enmity. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The present complaint has been lodged in counter as NCR was registered against the complainant. Injuries received by injured are simple in nature. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicants have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. Allegation alleged in the complaint is supported by medical examination report as four persons have received grievous injuries. It is not a case of false implication. Applicants are not co-operating in trial proceedings, as such, applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 6. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicants and perused the record. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants, namely, Ankit, Indal @ Indal Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Pappu @ Pappu Singh, are hereby rejected. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad