HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1881 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.468 of 2025 under sections 3(6), 109, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, P.S. Pali, district Hardoi. 2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddharth Shankar Dubey for the respondent No.2. Also heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Siddharth Shankar Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No.2 is taken on record. 3.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the named accused persons along with four unknown individuals committed assault (maar-peet) inside the complainant's house on 22.10.2025, regarding which an FIR was lodged. It is further alleged that in order to compel the complainant to enter into a compromise, on 30.10.2025 three named and four unknown accused persons, with an intention to kill, opened fire. Shyamji is alleged to have fired at the complainant, but he escaped. It is also alleged that although the complainant and others were beaten, Akhilesh attempted to kill the complainant by strangulation. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajat Raj Narayan Bajpai, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Aadesh Pandey, Satish Kumar Sharma, Siddharth Shankar Dubey Shyam Ji .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Ghanshyam has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.11.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail No.1815 of 2025. All the three injured have sustained simple injuries. It is a case of false implication. Ingredients of section 109 BNS are not attracted. The applicant has explained criminal history in para 21 of the bail application. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate and complainant's counsel have opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel. They do not dispute that there are simple injuries. However, unlike the co-accused Ghanshyam who has been granted interim protection by this court, specific allegation of firing is on the present applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has a chequered criminal history of five cases. Thus, case of the applicant is distinct from the case of the co-accused, named above. 6.In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in case crime No.227 of 2012 under sections 304/34, 504, 506 I.P.c., the applicant has been acquitted. In case crime No.93 of 2017 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 476 I.P.c., final report has been submitted by the police. In case crime No.69 of 2016 under sections 323, 325, 506, the applicant is on bail. In case crime No.456 of 2025 under sections 3(6), 333, 324(4), 115(2), 351(3), 134 BNS, the applicant has not received any summon or notice. Case crime No.290 of 2022 under sections 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. mentioned in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit does not relate to the applicant. From case crime No.220 of 2017 under sections 147, 435, 504, 506 I.P.C. also mentioned in the supplementary affidavit, the applicant has no concern, nor any summon or notice has been received by him. 7.I have considered the submission and perused the record. As regards bail order of Ghanshyam, no specific allegation has been levelled against him. In the present case, there is specific allegation of firing against the applicant. The applicant has a criminal history of several cases whereas in the case of Ghanshyam, there are general allegations. As regards the present accused applicant, prima facie, it cannot be said that it is a case of false implication. The case of the present applicant is distinct from the case of co-accused Ghanshyam who has been granted NABAIL No. 1881 of 2025 2 interim protection by this court. 8.No case for anticipatory bail is made out. The application is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the applicant files a regular bail application within two weeks from today, the same be decided expeditiously, strictly in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021. December 5, 2025 kkb/ NABAIL No. 1881 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench