HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5956 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. The case is taken up on mentioning. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants is taken on record. 3. Heard Shri Vishnu Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Harikesh Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri J.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.37 of 2025, under Sections 123, 115(2), 143(4), 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Bara, District Prayagraj, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the case relates to matrimonial dispute, which has been given colour of criminality. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no offence under the alleged Sections are made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that applicant no.1 is having criminal history of five cases, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today. 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. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co- operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vishnu Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Harikesh Mishra Akil Ahmad And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant no.1 is still extending threat to the first informant. 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 8. As per first information report, the matter relates to some matrimonial dispute and there is no medical evidence regarding administering of poisonous substance to the daughter of the first informant. The applicant no.1 is having criminal history of five cases, which has been explained in supplementary affidavit filed today. 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, 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. 10. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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 the applicants - Akil Ahmad and Raheesha involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 NABAIL No. 5956 of 2025 2 police officer; (iii) The applicants would co-operate 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 RKM NABAIL No. 5956 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad