Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33026 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1910 of 2025 Applicant :- Dr. Vaibhav Raj Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- K.S. Tiwari,Vivek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri K. S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 354, 506 IPC, Police Station-Sigra, District- Varanasi, till conclusion of trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant FIR lodged in the year 2019 and applicant was served notice U/s 41-A Cr.P.C. Applicant co-operated in investigation proceedings. I.O. submitted charge sheet against the applicant in the year 2019, court concerned took cognizance and issued summon against the applicant, when applicant did not approach to court then bailable warrant has been issued on 14.07.2021 against the applicant, thereafter, applicant challenged the charge sheet, cognizance order and summoning order by filing 482 application bearing No.18843 of 2021 before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.10.2021 disposed off the petition finally with direction that applicant shall appear before court concerned within 30 days and applies for bail. Applicant's counsel further submitted that applicant has not received notice regarding summon, therefore, applicant could not appear before the court concerned. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that prima facie, it appears that applicant filed 482 application for quashing of the entire proceedings of the case, charge sheet, cognizance order as well as summoning order passed by court concerned, hence, it is beyond doubt that applicant had no knowledge regarding summoning order passed against the applicant. The submission advanced by applicant's counsel regarding applicant was unaware of summoning order due to which he could not appear before the court below, is totally false. Court below has also issued bailable warrant on 14.07.2021 against the applicant for non appearance in trial proceedings. Applicant is not co-operating and playing tactics for delaying the trial proceedings. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Anticipatory bail 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. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, it is apparent from the record that applicant moved 482 Cr.P.C. application which was rejected on 22.10.2021. After dismissal of 482 application, applicant has not appear before trial court. Applicant's act is not fair towards trial. Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application of applicant-Dr. Vaibhav Raj Mishra, is rejected. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Nitin Verma (Deepak Verma, J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad