HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1596 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. 2.The present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.0402 of 2025 under sections 3(5), 109, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2) B.N.S., P.S. Sushant Golf City, district Lucknow. 3.Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. Name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused Shiva Rawat after two months from the date of the incident. All the co- accused persons have been granted bail. The applicant has no criminal history. He is not concerned with the incident. 4.Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, while opposing the bail application submits that the role assigned to the applicant is distinct from the other co- accused persons. He has allegedly given Rs.60,000/- to the co-accused Shiva Rawat for committing the crime. He is a master mind. It is not a case of false implication. Custodial interrogation is necessary. The injured has sustained multiple injuries. 5.I have considered the submission and perused the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shivam Dixit .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6.On due consideration to the argument advanced, perusal of the record, gravity of the offence and nature of injuries sustained, it cannot be said to be a case of false implication. The offence under section 109 B.N.S. is punishable with life, statement of the injured and the injury report corroborate the prosecution version, custodial interrogation may be required, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. 7.At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to file a regular bail application and the same may be decided in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021. 8.In view of the above, prayer for anticipatory bail is refused and the application is dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the applicant files a regular bail application within two weeks from today, the same be decided expeditiously, strictly in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). October 28, 2025 kkb/ NABAIL No. 1596 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench