Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6734 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11939 of 2024 Applicant :- Akeel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Namrata Shukla,Santosh Kumar Shukla 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.21 of 2004, under Sections 504, 427, 436 I.P.C., P.S. Dibiyapur, district Auraiya, during the pendency of the trial. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2004. The Investigating Officer submitted final report, thereafter informant filed protest application and on that protest application, the applicant was summoned. Thereafter, the applicant and other co-accused challenged the summoning order by filing Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.13727 of 2006 and the same was decided vide order dated 06.03.2020. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. From perusal of order sheet dated 08.09.2024 to 24.10.2024, no summon was issued against the applicant and trial court issued non bailable warrant and started proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and the applicant has not been given any chance before the trial court. 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 prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.13727 of 2006 was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2020 and since last four years, the applicant did not appear before the trial court and proceedings started against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 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 counsel for the applicant and perused the record. No interference is warranted by this Court as the applicant has not informed the Court regarding dismissal of 482 application and since last four years he kept the court in dark. 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. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad