Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13481 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 688 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Pandey Alias Praveen Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.401 of 2024, under Sections 340(2), 338, 336(3), 318(4), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness. Applicant has been implicated in the confessional statement of co-accused and it is against the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He next submitted that co- accused Shubham Upadhyay has been granted anticipatory bail by the trial court. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that applicant has eight cases of criminal history, which has not been explained in the affidavit of anticipatory bail application. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 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 anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Shivam Pandey @ Praveen Pandey, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad