Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19155 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1041 of 2025 Applicant :- Km Priyank Deshwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Yadav,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,M J Akhtar Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned counsel for the informant, 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 her on bail in Case Crime No.13 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 109 (1) m and 118 (1) B.N.S.S., P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor, during the pendency of the trial. 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.The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. 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 Senior Counsel for the informant raised objection that the applicant has challenged the F.I.R. by filing Crl.Misc. Writ Petition No.2441 of 2025, which is pending and now the instant anticipatory bail application has been filed. In the instant anticipatory bail, nowhere it has been mentioned that writ petition is pending. The applicant has concealed this fact. Moreover, the injury reports are also supporting the prosecution case. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. 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. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. The applicant has not disclosed the fact that writ petition is pending before this Court. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. No interference is warranted by this Court. 7. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad