Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18223 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 995 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Anjila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avaneesh Kumar,Awaneesha Kumar,Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Krishna Kant Dubey; Sri Dharamveer Singh and Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey counsels for the informant; 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 her on bail in Case Crime No.329 of 2024, under Sections 306, 61(2) B.N.S., P.S. Noida, Sector-49, District Gautambuddha Nagar, during the pendency of the trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. She has been implicated being sisters of named accused persons. It is next submitted that applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by the trial court. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 482 B.N.S.S. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The applicant was granted interim bail by the court below vide order dated 24.10.2024, thereafter, she is not cooperating with the investigation of the proceedings. It is evident from the paragraphs- 4 and 6 of rejection order that despite service of notice, applicant did not appear before the Investigating Officer and willfully avoided to appear before the I.O. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. 6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. No interference is warranted by this Court as the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings. 7. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad