HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8050 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri 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.265 of 2025, under Sections 193(2), 191(3), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2), 117(2), 125 of B.N.S., Police Station Daurala, District Meerut, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the applicant and the injuries of three injured persons are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of one case, in which, he is on bail. 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 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 and submitted that the applicant and other co-accused persons indulged in writing and assaulting the informant side, in which, three persons received injuries, however, he does not dispute the fact that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nitin Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amit .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) injuries are of simple in nature and one of the injuries of the informant, namely, Shivam Mathur has been kept under observation. 6. As per first information report, the applicant along with co-accused Harshit and 4-5 unknown persons indulged in fighting and assaulting the informant and his associates, in which, three persons, namely, Shivam Mathur, Anurag and Shivam Singh are said to have received injuries. As per injury report, none of injuries are on the vital part and except one of the injuries of the injured Shivam Mathur, Rest of the injuries are simple in nature. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Amit involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 NABAIL No. 8050 of 2025 2 liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. 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 7, 2025 RKM NABAIL No. 8050 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad