Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14008 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11611 of 2024 Applicant :- Mukesh Babu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Sukhendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; 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 bail in Case Crime No.108 of 2021, under Section 353 I.P.C., P.S. Pishwa, District Aligarh,till conclusion of trial. 3. 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 whole prosecution story is false and malicious. The applicants were not arrested and they have cooperated with the trial proceedings. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet in the year 2022 and vide order dated 24.02.2022 summons were issued against the applicants under Section 353 I.P.C. The applicants have stated in para-21 that due to non receiving of summon/information from the court, applicants could not get any information with regard to pendency of the case. When the police authority raided upon the house of the applicants and informed with regard to pendency of present case and issuance of non bailable warrant of the case then they came to know. It is next submitted that the applicants have no criminal history and they would co-operate with trial proceedings. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 CR.P.C. 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. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the statement of witnesses, during investigation, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. The charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants and the court has taken cognizance against them. Since last two and a half years the applicant is absconding from the trial proceedings, hence the trial court vide order dated 21.10.2022 issued bailable warrant and thereafter non bailable warrant against the applicants. Since the applicants could not cooperate with the trial proceedings, there is no occasion to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 5. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. 6. Considered the argument raised by the counsel for the applicants and perused the record. From the record, it is apparent that summons were issued in the year 2022 and bailable and non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants. More than two and a half years have been passed, it could not be presumed that summons were not served upon the applicants. The Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants that no offence is made out against the applicants, these are the factual dispute which can be examined by the trial court. 7. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. 9. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 10. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad