Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5668 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12134 of 2024 Applicant :- Tarun Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Yadav 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.482 of 2024, under Sections 364, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur, during the pendency of the trial. 3. As per F.I.R., informant's son went with the applicant and other co-accused to take bath in Ganga river, thereafter the informant's son did not back to home. More than six months have been passed but informant's son has not been recovered and applicant and other co-accused are threatening the informant. 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 F.I.R. is delayed by four months. Allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless. 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 applicant is named in the F.I.R. The informant's son went with the applicant and co-accused, thereafter he did not return back and till date the whereabouts of the informant's son has not been received. 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. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, it is apparent that informant's son went with the applicant and other co-accused and they are not disclosing the whereabouts of the informant's son and are threatening the informant. Prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. 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. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad