HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8354 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, 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. 543 of 2025 under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 191, 3 (5) of B.N.S., Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that allegation of fire is on co-accused Kapil whereas the allegation against the applicant is that she along with co-accused Brijesh Yadav was armed with danda and knife and they assaulted the victim. As per the injury report of the victim, no injury of knife or danda was found on his person. It is also submitted that the injured suffered injuries on his legs. It is submitted that applicant has criminal history of two cases which has been duly explained in the memo of application and she is on bail in both the said cases. It is also submitted that co-accused Brijesh Yadav has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail today itself by this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8173 of 2025. 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Urmila .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) It has been stated that in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that applicant has been attributed the role of assaulting the victim with knife and danda, however, he does not dispute the fact that allegation of firing is on co-accused Kapil. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per the FIR, one Kapil is said to have opened fire upon the victim as a result of which, he suffered injuries on his legs. Co-accused Brijesh Yadav is said have assaulted the victim with danda and knife but there is no such injury found on his person. Applicant has criminal history of two cases which has been duly explained in the memo of application and she is on bail in both the said cases. Co-accused Brijesh Yadav has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail today itself by this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8173 of 2025. 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, 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. 8. 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. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant Smt. Urmila involved in the NABAIL No. 8354 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 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. 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 14, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 8354 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad