Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37121 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1434 of 2025 Applicant :- Arpit Kumar Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhupendra Kumar Pandey,Devendra Vikram Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 637 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 110, 3(5), 105, 61(2) of BNS, P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh, during pendency of trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is not named in the FIR. One co-accused, Piyush Rai, has been granted interim bail till submission of police report, by co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14.02.2025. Investigation is going on. On perusal of statement of witnesses, no offence under the alleged sections is made out against the applicant and no role has been assigned to the applicant. Applicant's counsel claims parity with co-accused, Piyush Rai, who has been granted anticipatory bail. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 27 of the application. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police. 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Co-ordinate Bench, while granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused, Piyush Rai, has observed that the applicant-Arpit Rai, was seen in CCTV footage for assaulting the deceased by kick and fists. Applicant's case is different from co-accused, Piyush Rai, who has been granted anticipatory bail as applicant has been seen in CCTV footage for assaulting the deceased. Injury report is supporting the prosecution case. Applicant has criminal history and NBW has also been issued against him and applicant is not co-operating in the trial proceedings. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 482 of BNSS is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 6. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Arpit Kumar Rai, is rejected. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad