HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8116 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2025, under Sections 308(5), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that as per the allegation in the FIR the applicant along with other co-accused Monu Chaudhary are said to have demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- by threatening him. It is also submitted that no transaction of money has taken place with the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Byas Kumar Prasad, Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Siddharth Bagga Mahenaj Fatma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for grant for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused are indulging in extending threats and abusing the first informant and demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been made from him, however he submits that no transaction with regard to Rs. 5,00,000/- has taken place. 5. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. As per first information report, the allegation against the applicant is that she along with other co-accused Monu Chaudhary extended threats and used abusive language against the first informant and they also demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-, however, no transaction with regard to the allegation of demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- has taken place. The applicant is having no criminal history. 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, 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. 9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the 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- Mahenaj Fatma involved in the NABAIL No. 8116 of 2025 2 aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her 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 she 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 cooperate 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 herein. October 14, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8116 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad