Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4831 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 142 of 2025 Applicant :- Irfan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.342 of 2024, under Sections 109, 191(2), 126(20, 125, 352 B.N.S., Police Station Khekra District Baghpat. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. From perusal of FIR, no offence under alleged section is made out against the applicants. From perusal of FIR, it is also apparent that there is no motive to assault the injured. Allegation alleged in the FIR is malice, though there is injury but there is no substantive evidence against the applicants to implicate them. It is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants is released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that injured Gajendra Dhama has received seven injuries and as per CT Scan Report, there is mild displaced fracture in left zygomatic arch and zygoma. Applicants are named in the FIR. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 482 of the BNS Act 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. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. It is not a case of false implication. 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 anticipatory bail to the applicants in the aforesaid case. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants- Irfan & Soyeb, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby rejected. 9. However, if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within two weeks and applies for bail, their bail application shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad