Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36399 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1059 of 2025 Applicant :- Rukampal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh 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 applicant for enlarging them on bail in Complaint Case No.3869 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.121 of 2018, under Sections 307, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj, during pendency of the trial. 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. The applicants have no concern with the alleged incident. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. The applicants have no criminal history. It is next submitted that the applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 482 B.N.S. 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 with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicants is made out. The applicants have stated that they have no criminal history whereas he has received instructions that applicant has criminal history which has not been stated in bail application. The applicants have not filed this bail application with clean hand. 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. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. The applicants have not come with clean hands. No interference is warranted by this Court. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 7. 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. 8. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within three 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. 9. For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad