Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4654 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7 of 2024 Applicant :- Shahnavaj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Zubair Hasan,Shakeel Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present bail application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 515 of 2024, under Sections 109 and 352 of BNS and under Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, P.S. Pihani, District Hardoi. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 2.9.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- " The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in case crime/F.I.R No. 515/2024, under Sections 109 and 352 of BNS and under Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, P.S. Pihani, District Hardoi. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to the continuous strike going on in District Hardoi from 13.08.2024 to 28.08.2024, the applicant could not approach learned Sessions Judge for filing anticipatory bail application. In support of his argument, he has relied on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court passed in the case of "Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1949". Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has explained his criminal history in the supplementary affidavit. He has been falsely implicated. There is lack of corroborative evidence in the prosecution case. Learned AGA has submitted that applications for anticipatory bail were being filed through this period, however, he has not aware whether any anticipatory bail application has been decided during this period. Learned AGA prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instructions in this regard. List on 18.09.2024. Perused the record. On due consideration to the submissions advanced as well as perusal of the record, prima facie it appears that it is a case of no injury and nothing has been recovered from the applicant, the applicant is not a previous convict; he has explained his criminal history and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. " State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. It has also not been pleaded by counsel for the State that the present applicant is not cooperating with the trial proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant namely, Shahnavaj, 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. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Shravan Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench