HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8408 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ritesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 312 of 2025, under Sections 109, 352, 351(3), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Bairia, District Ballia with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above- mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant as the role of opening fire is on co-accused Vishal Singh and Priyanshu Singh as per the allegation in the FIR and in the statement of the first informant role of firing has been assigned to Piyush Singh. It is submitted that the applicant has not been assigned the role of firing. It is further submitted that no injury has been received in the alleged incident. It is submitted that the applicant is having criminal history, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ganesh Mani, Ritesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Aryan Pratap Singh @ Kanha .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. As per allegation in the first information report, Vishal Singh and Priyanshu Singh are said to have fired on the first informant and in the statement of the first informant role of firing has been assigned to co- accused Piyush Singh and no one has received any injury of firearm in the alleged incident. The applicant is having criminal history, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. 8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Aryan Pratap Singh @ Kanha involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear NABAIL No. 8408 of 2025 2 before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 12. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein. October 15, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8408 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad