Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19617 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 775 of 2025 Applicant :- Sameer Hussain And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shamsuddin Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad, 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 01 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; Applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. Injuries are not supported by prosecution story. I.O. has submitted charge sheet but the same has not supported by any evidence. Vide order dated 27.11.2024, applicants have been summoned. During investigation, applicants were served notice U/s 41-A Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in trial proceedings. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that Applicants are named in the FIR and I.O. has submitted charge sheet after collecting cogent evidence against the applicants, as such, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. It is not a case of false implication. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 6. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 7. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. 9. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 10. Till two weeks from today or till surrender of the applicants before court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad