Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30040 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1745 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Meena Katiyar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.12 of 2025, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 406, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Araula, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial. 3. It is alleged in the FIR is that applicant No.1, Meena Katiyar, solemnized marriage with informant on 18.11.2023 concealing the facts that she had already married with three other persons to whom she deceived and took away all their belongings. It was her fourth marriage with the informant and she with her brother (applicant No.2) started blackmailing to the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant No.1 is a lady and the present FIR has been lodged against the applicants in counter as earlier applicant No.1 had lodged complaint against her husband (informant) and other members of her in-laws on 03.07.2024. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicants have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that on perusal of FIR, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. Applicant No.1, after concealing the facts that she had already married with three other persons, has solemnized marriage with the informant, thereafter, to grab the informant's property and belonging, applicant No.1 with the help of applicant No.2 started blackmailing to the informant. It is not a case of false implication. Applicants are professional to grab someones property after solemnizing fake marriage. Applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants 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 applicant 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 applicants, Smt. Meena Katiyar and Yashpal @ Baua, are hereby rejected. 9. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 10. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad