Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15674 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 836 of 2025 Applicant :- Shiva Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Namman Raj Vanshi 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 applicants for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.421 of 2024, under Sections 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191 (3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109, 316 (2), 318 (4) B.N.S., P.S. Transport Nagar, District Meerut, during pendency of trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant F.I.R. has been lodged with malicious intention only to exert pressure upon the applicant. In the F.I.R. there is no description that which property informant wants to purchase. The F.I.R. is not supported by any evidence and it is a no injury case. The investigation is going on against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. 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 applicant is named in the F.I.R. with allegation that he has received money. It is not a case of false implication. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant 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. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies 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 two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad