Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11566 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 11493 of 2024 Applicant :- Jagat Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Gaurav Tripathi, 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 279 of 1998, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Erwa Katra, District Auraiya. 3. Instant FIR has been lodged in the year 1998 with the allegation that accused persons wanted to cross their tractors through the standing crops in the field of the informant, when informant resisted then situation turned serious and the applicant with intention to kill fired through his rifle upon first informant, the co-accused fired through his gun which injured the victim-Kunwarpal. 4. 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; Allegation alleged in the FIR is false and is not supported by material evidence. Injuries are not grievous in nature. Charge sheet submitted by I.O. is not supported by material evidence. Court concerned issued summon on charge sheet. Summon issued against the applicant was challenged by filing criminal revision and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.04.1999, thereafter, again summon was issued but applicant had no knowledge regarding the same, in meantime, parties had compromised the matter, thereafter, applicant filed 482 application bearing No.40341 of 2023 and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 disposed of the 482 application with direction that the court concerned shall verify the compromise deed and to pass appropriate order, thereafter applicant filed 482 application bearing No.5335 of 2024, the same is pending before this Hon'ble Court, thereafter applicant has filed this anticipatory bail application. It is further 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the applicant. Instant proceeding is pending since 1998 and applicant had knowledge regarding proceeding of trial as applicant challenged NBW by filing criminal revision but applicant submitted that he had no knowledge regarding summon, thereafter both the parties compromised the matter and applicant filed 482 application which was disposed off but applicant filed another 482 application, the same is still pending before this Hon'ble Court, as such, applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel and learned AGA, it is evident from the record that 482 application is pending before this Hon'ble Court and despite knowledge of court proceedings applicant did not appear before trial court and has not participated in trial proceedings. The act of applicant is not appreciable in terms of non co-operation with trial proceeding and avoiding his appearance before trial court. Record shows that applicant is intentionally not participating in trial proceedings. Moreover, 482 application is pending before this Hon'ble Court. I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicant-Jagat Singh, is rejected. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Nitin Verma (Deepak Verma, J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad