Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48206 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 451 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahanand Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Pandey,Annapurna Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri. Rama Niwas Pathak, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhir Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. 2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 14.05.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1. 2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2. 3. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.333 of 2025, under Sections 191(3), 118(1), 74, 115(2), 351(2) BNS, P.S. Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 4. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 30.08.2024 at about 10.00 AM when applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked the informant and his family members inflicting serious injuries upon them. 5. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that a bare perusal of FIR alongwith the statement of injured clearly indicates that there is no specific role assigned to the applicant of having inflicted any injuries upon informant and his family members and that only role attributed is of exhortation. It is submitted that charge-sheet on that basis has been filed against applicant and that he had cooperated during of investigation. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail but does not dispute the aforesaid aspects. It is admitted that previous criminal history of one case pertaining to matrimonial dispute has been explained. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that there is no specific role assigned to the applicant of having inflicted any injury and his role is indicated only of exhortation. It is admitted that applicant has cooperated during investigation and now has apprehension of arrest. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS. 8. List this case on 05.06.2025, as fresh, along with service report. 9. Objections may be filed in the meantime. 10. In view of above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, applicant Mahanand Maurya shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on his/her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed." 3. The Sate has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge-sheet dated 22.10.2024 but there is no allegation of misuse of the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit. 5. The office has reported on 04.06.2025 that the notice issued to the opposite party no.2 stands served but nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to oppose the anticipatory bail application. 6. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 14.05.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. In view of above, the interim order dated 14.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench