HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6403 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Case taken up on mention. 2. Heard Sri Sarthak Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri 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. 87 of 2022 under Sections 308, 325, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dhanapur, District Chandauli with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. He further submits that four persons are said to have assaulted the first informant as a result of which, he received injuries. It is also submitted that initially the FIR was lodged under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC but subsequently, section 308 IPC was also added. It is submitted that chargesheet has been filed in the present case and applicant has no criminal history to his credit. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Saleem Ahamad, Sarthak Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Aman Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) of anticipatory bail and submits that 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Initially, FIR was lodged under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC but subsequently, section 308 IPC was also added. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case and the 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 Aman Yadav 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; NABAIL No. 6403 of 2025 2 (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. 6403 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad