Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20273 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 297 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikas And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Tripathi,Sudha Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party-State. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No.2 stands dispensed with. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 151 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 110, 333, 351(2), 117(2) BNS, P.S. Hathigawan, District Pratapgarh. 4. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 18th July, 2024 at about 5.00 P.M. when the applicants are said to have attacked the informant inflicting serious injuries upon him and his family members. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that there is cross case with injuries being suffered by both sides. It is therefore submitted that at this stage, it is difficult to ascertain the aggressor of the incident. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam versus State of Jharkhand and another rendered in Criminal appeal No. 2207 of 2023 arising out of special leave petition (Crl.) No. 3433 of 2023 with submission that even in case the sections imputed carry maximum sentence of below 7 years, anticipatory bail should be granted in case applicants are cooperating in the investigation. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with the submission that since maximum sentence with regard to sections imputed is below 7 years, there is no apprehension of arrest and therefore anticipatory bail is not required to be maintainable. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that general allegations of inflicting injuries upon the informant and family members has been indicated in the F.I.R. nominating all the applicants. There also appears to be cross F.I.Rs. with the injuries being suffered on both sides. The aspect of persons being aggressors would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam (supra) has enunciated the law with regard to maintainability of anticipatory bail applications in cases where maximum sentence is below 7 years and it has been directed that in such cases as when, once charge sheet has been filed indicating that the applicants had cooperated during investigation, courts ought to grant bail as a matter of course and not to mechanically reject the same. It is also indicated that in such situations, the aspects to be indicated in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2014(8) SCC 273 is required to be followed. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. 9. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicants- Vikas, Aakash, Lavkush, Amar Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Shiv Kumar alias Ram Kumar shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant(s) shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant(s) shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant(s) shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant(s) shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant(s) shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant(s) shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, benefit of this order would not be available to applicant(s) 10. The application stands allowed. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench