Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20404 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 870 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh 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 applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No 240 of 2024, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act & Section 11 Cruelty of Animals (Protection) Act & Section 325 of B.N.S., Police Station Syed Raja, District Chandauli. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant has been implicated in the present case being owner of the vehicle. Police party made recovery of changed vehicle No.UP67 BT 2897 to UP 64BT 7395 of the applicant. Applicant has initially changed the vehicle number and Investigating Officer has brought correct number of the vehicle by Vehicle Chassis No.MAT464827RSAQ1277. 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. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 6. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Rahul Yadav, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad