HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8411 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 412 of 2025 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 117 (2), 61 (3), 109, 333 of B.N.S., Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants seeks permission to withdraw the application in respect of applicant no.2 Raghvendra @ Monu. 4. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed and the application in respect of applicant no.2 Raghvendra @ Monu stands dismissed as withdrawn. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that as per the FIR, applicant nos. 1 and 4 have been assigned the role of assaulting the first informant along with co-accused Raghvendra @ Monu as a result of which, he sustained injuries but the same are simple in nature. It is further submitted that applicant no.1 has criminal history which has been duly explained in the memo of application. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case they Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Yogendra @ Sonu And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that in the supplementary injury report, one injury is found to be grievous in nature. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. As per the FIR, applicant nos. 1 and 4 have been assigned the role of assaulting the first informant along with co-accused Raghvendra @ Monu as a result of which, he sustained injuries and one of the injury is found to be grievous in nature. Applicant no.3 Suresh Chandra has been assigned the role of extending threats to the first informant. There is no specific role assigned to any of the applicants. One of the injury sustained by the injured is grievous in nature but the same is not dangerous to life. Applicant no.1 has criminal history which has been duly explained in the memo of application. 9. 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, antecedents of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must also evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 10. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12. In the event of arrest of applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4 namely Yogendra @ Sonu, Suresh Chandra and Shailendra @ Pinku involved in the NABAIL No. 8411 of 2025 2 aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicants 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 applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 13. 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 applicants. October 15, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 8411 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad