Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36682 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 737 of 2025 Applicant :- Jan Mohammad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Sri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate has field his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant along with counter affidavit in Court today, which is also taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material placed on record. 4. The instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant, Jan Mohammad on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0096 of 2025, under Sections 69, 64(2)(ड), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Ranipur, District Bahraich. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He submits that due to some misconception, the first information report has been lodged and subsequently the matter has amicably been settled between the parties and they have performed marriage and they are living as husband and wife. He has also drawn attention towards the nikahanama, which is on stamp paper appended along with the counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant, and submitted that on 18.06.2025, the parties have settled their dispute. He also added that further allowing the criminal proceeding would amount to harassment of the applicant and the matter would not lead to the punishment. He next submits that the applicant is cooperating in the investigation proceeding and he undertakes that he will always cooperate in the investigation. 6. His further submission is that the applicant has a criminal history of one case, which has sufficiently been explained by him. He also submits that there is an apprehension that the police will arrest him and and as such, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant and the alleged victim have performed marriage and they are living as husband and wife and as such, there is no dispute between them, and since the matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute and both the parties are major, thus, the criminal proceeding cannot go on Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the parties being major have settled their dispute. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that there was some dispute between the parties and the complainant i.e. the alleged victim herself lodged the first information report. Though, at this stage, it has been stated that the first information report was lodged under some misconception, and both the parties have settled their dispute and performed marriage. A nikahnama is also appended along with the counter affidavit, and they are living as husband and wife. 10. This court has also taken note of the fact that the applicant has criminal history of one case, which has sufficiently been explained by him and as per submission of learned counsel for the applicant that there is an apprehension that the police will arrest him and the applicant has undertaken that he will always cooperate with the trial proceedings. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this court finds it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and therefore, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Jan Mohammad, on furnishing 2 sureties of equal amount and one personal bond to the satisfaction of trial court concerned till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. 12. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. [Shree Prakash Singh, J.] Order Date :- 27.6.2025/cks/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench