Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11541 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 585 of 2025 Applicant :- Prahlad Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, 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 252 of 2024, under Section 303 of BNS and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Adalhat, District Mirzapur. 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; Applicant is owner of the vehicle having no concern with the alleged incident. Applicant has no previous criminal history. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he 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 there is direct allegation against the applicant. From FIR it is apparent that 37 vehicles were seized by the joint team of Mines and Minerals Department and RTO, Mirzapur, thereafter, in night vehicles have been taken away by the owner of the vehicles, as such, applicant has violated Section 303 of BNS and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 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 anticipatory bail 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. 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 applicant in the aforesaid case. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad