Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5590 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12137 of 2024 Applicant :- Jeetram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Malik,Bramhapal Malick Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; 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.142 of 2024, under Sections 109, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3 (5) B.N.S., P.S. Sector 142, Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, during pendency of the trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name surfaced in the statement of informant. In the F.I.R., four persons have been implicated for assault. No role has been assigned to the applicant. He has been implicated with malicious intention. 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. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in para-16 of the bail application, it is stated that he has no criminal history but the applicant has criminal history under Section 307 I.P.C. The applicant has not filed this anticipatory bail application with clean hands. The act of the applicant is not fair. 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 come with clean hand and the act of the applicant is not fair. 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 applicant surrenders and applies for bail before the concerned court below within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the court below in accordance with law. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad