Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10323 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12361 of 2024 Applicant :- Satyapal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Intekhab Alam Khan 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.171of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Kaila Devi, District Sambhal, during pendency 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 as civil dispute is pending between the parties. Further submission is that brother of the applicant co-accused Nareshpal has filed Writ C No. 35254 of 2024 before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 directed the parties to maintain status quo. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. The medical examination report is not supporting the prosecution case and injuries are simple in nature. 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 prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The applicants are named in the F.I.R. and injured has received grievous injury and it is not a case of false implication. The prosecution is supported by medical examination report. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants 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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 482 B.N.S.S., I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 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 :- 21.1.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad