Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5354 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2081 of 2024 Applicant :- Imarati @ Premwati And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicants- Imarati @ Premwati and Indrapal on anticipatory bail in Case Crime (FIR) No. 0247 of 2023, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 325 and 308 IPC, Police Station Bilgram District Hardoi. The notice has been issued to the complainant/opposite party no.2 and as per office report, the same has been served personally but no one is present for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 10.09.2024, following order was passed wherein the applicant no.1 and 2 have been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 247/2023, under Sections 452/323/504/506/325/308 I.P.C., P.S. Bilgram, District Hardoi. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants after arguing for some time submits that he does not want to press the anticipatory bail application for applicant no. 3 and 4. Accordingly, the bail application for applicant no. 3 and 4 is dismissed as not pressed. So far as applicant no. 1 and 2 are concerned, it has been submitted that applicant no. 1 is a lady aged about 62 years and applicant no. 2 is 74 years old. Both are parents of applicant no. 3 and 4. Entire family members have been falsely implicated by making general allegations. Both the injured in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have assigned general role of assault. Looking to the age of applicant no. 1 and 2, the incident narrated by the injured appears to be highly improbable. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that injured Naveen has sustained injury in the left parietal bone and other injured have suffered fracture in his finger, however, he does not dispute the age of applicant no. 1 and 2. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Steps be taken within a week. List on 03.10.2024. On due consideration to the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Mahdoom Bava v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299" as well as considering the fact that applicant no. 1 and 2 are parents of applicant no. 3 and 4; entire family is accused in this case; they have no criminal antecedent; the applicant no. 1 and 2 have cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial; they are not previous convicts and having no criminal antecedents as well as considering the general role assigned by both the injured upon all the family members of the accused persons, possibility of false implication of applicant no. 1 and 2 considering their age cannot be ruled out and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, 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 court concerned with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses. (2) The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court. (3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court." From perusal of the order dated 10.09.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicants were enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicants are not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicants- Imarati @ Premwati and Indrapal till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicants 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 applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicants 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 interim protection. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench