Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33095 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1513 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivchandra @ Dhyan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjeev Kumar Trivedi,G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 bail in Case Crime No.121 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 131, 352, 351(3), 110, 117(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sakrawa, District Kannauj. 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. Instant FIR lodged with malice intention as applicant earlier lodged FIR against the informant with regard to molestation of his daughter. Both the parties have lodged FIR. Informant has got anticipatory bail. Charge-sheet has been submitted and Court has taken cognizance. Injuries are simple in nature. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that applicant is named in the FIR and injuries are grievous in nature. It is not a case of false implication. Statement of the witness and medical examination report are supporting the prosecution story. 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 B.N.S.S. 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. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Medical examination report and statement of the witnesses are supporting the prosecution case. No interference is warranted. 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 anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Shivchandra @ Dhyan Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected. 9. Considering the aforesaid alternative prayer of the applicant, it is directed that if applicant surrenders before the concerned court below within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law. 10. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad