HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5929 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Case taken up on mention. 2. Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.96 of 2025, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 333, 131, 109, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 324(4), 324(5) B.N.S., P.S. Rura, District Kanpur Dehat. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that specific role of causing grievous injury to the injured is assigned to co-accused Shahrukh and similarly placed co-accused Rashid has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 14.8.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.5975 of 2025. It is further submitted that role of the applicant is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Rashid. It is further submitted that there is no criminal history of the applicant. 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 and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that applicant along with other co-accused persons is said to have caused grievous injury to the injured. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. As per the FIR, applicant along with other co-accused persons is said to have caused grievous injury to the injured and the specific role of causing grievous injury to the injured is assigned to co-accused Shahrukh. Similarly Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Namit Srivastava, Raj Kumar Ojha, Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anand Kumar Singh, G.A. Firoz @ Afroz .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) placed co-accused Rashid has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 14.8.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.5975 of 2025 and the role of applicant is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Rashid. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. 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, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration. 9. 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 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 Firoz @ Afroz 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 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 co-operate 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. October 15, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 5929 of 2025 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad