Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30218 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1268 of 2025 Applicant :- Pintu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 656 of 2018, under sections 420, 386, 407, 411, 413, 266, 34 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Vijay Nagar, District-Ghaziabad, during pendency of 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. He next submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. His name as an accused in the present surfaced for the first time during investigation. The instant application was field after submission of chargesheet, which was filed in the year 2019. Thereafter by order dated 26.7.2019 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same and issued summons against the applicant to face trial in a mechanical manner without applying his judicial mind. He further submits that the applicant has no knowledge about the issuance of summon. He lastly submits that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co- operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that since 2019 summons have been issued against the applicant and due to non appearance before the court concerned non bailable warrant has also been issued against him. He further submits that from the perusal of the record, it is apparent that notice has been issued in the year 2019 and it cannot be presumed that since then the notice has not been served upon the applicant. He also submits that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 482 of BNSS is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 6. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Pintu Yadav, is rejected. 9. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 10. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Order Date :- 3.3.2025/Faridul Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad