Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19144 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1039 of 2025 Applicant :- Jayram Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jagadish Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; Ms. Suneeta Chauhan, counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants for enlarging them on bail in Case Crime No.485 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 109 B.N.S., P.S. Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, during pendency of trial. 4. 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 whole prosecution story is false and malicious. The medical examination report is not supporting the prosecution case and injuries are simple in nature. 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The applicants are named in the F.I.R. and the prosecution is supported by medical examination report. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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 :- 10.2.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad