HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1217 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0429/2025, U/s 288/105 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita- 2023 and U/s 4/5 The Explosive Substances Act 1908, Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. 3. Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. 4. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that brother of the informant aged about 55 used to work for several years with Nafees. Nafees runs a licensed firecracker shop. However, in an illegal manner, he was getting firecrackers manufactured in a thatched room (chappar-dar kothari) situated in the field of Shakeel. On 22.07.2025 at about 10:45 a.m., an explosion took place in the said thatched room due to unknown reasons, resulting in the death of the brother of the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old and ailing person, suffering from several diseases, and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that he is a licensed Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Salman, Ana Fatma, Mukhtar Ahamad, Sanat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nafees @ Nafish Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) firecracker vendor. 6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application, contending that one person died in the explosion that took place in an illegally run firecracker unit. The deceased suffered six antemortem injuries, and the cause of death has been opined as coma due to antemortem head injury. 7. Upon due consideration, it is evident that out of six antemortem injuries, there are also burn injuries, and the medical evidence supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The statement of the complainant also corroborates the prosecution case. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that this is a case of false implication or the applicant has been implicated merely to tarnish his reputation. 8. Accordingly, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. September 10, 2025 R.C. NABAIL No. 1217 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench