Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8196 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 11660 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd Jalaluddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.127 of 2024, under Section 140(1) B.N.S., P.S. Duddhi, District Sonbhadra, during pendency of the trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The allegation alleged in the F.I.R is that applicant is brother of the main accused Rafiuddin with whom victim went to work in his village. It is next submitted that the statement of the witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. The applicant has no criminal history. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 482 B.N.S.S. 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The victim has not been recovered till today. Victim was last scene with main accused, brother of the applicant and there is allegation against the applicant that applicant was frequently in touch of victim. It is next submitted that since the victim has not recovered, custodial interrogation is necessary to get the whereabouts of the victim. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 6. 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. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is warranted by this Court. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad