HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2053 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed in Case Crime No. 402 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow. According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, in connivance with the co-accused persons and in furtherance of their common intention, on 06.05.2025 between 9:00 p.m. and 12:20 a.m., attacked the informant’s nephew with an iron rod with the intention to kill him. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the alleged van said to be involved in the incident is stated to have been used by the applicant; however, no registration number of the said vehicle has been disclosed by the prosecution. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the incident has been captured in CCTV footage and the investigation is still going on. It is further submitted that the number of the van is under investigation and the injuries received by the injured are grievous in nature. It is also pointed out that although the other co-accused have been granted regular bail, the present application is for anticipatory bail, the parameters whereof are altogether different. Perused the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Radha Krishna @ Radhey @ Sarvesh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) On due consideration of the facts, it transpires from the medico-legal examination report that the doctor has noted head injury with U.D., communicated patella (left) with avulsion, fracture of olecranon (compound) (right) with contusion, and fracture of the orbital floor with fracture of maxilla (right) on the person of the injured. Though the injured in his statement has not named the applicant, he has corroborated the prosecution case. The investigation is still going on. The offence is heinous in nature and punishable with life imprisonment. Merely because the other co-accused have been granted regular bail does not indicate false implication, considering the gravity of the offence and the criminal history of the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case is of false implication. Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, intended to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is satisfied that the applicant has been falsely implicated or where no material exists to justify custodial interrogation. In view of the above, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that liberty be granted to the applicant to file a regular bail application and that the same be decided in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 5191 of 2021. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the applicant files a regular bail application within two weeks from today, the same shall be decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). December 18, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S NABAIL No. 2053 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench