Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49513 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2615 of 2025 Applicant :- Rakesh Chandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; 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 Sessions Case No.887 of 2020, Case Crime No.66 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Mujariya, District Budaun, during pendency of the trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant was named in the F.I.R. but Investigating Officer has not collected any material evidence and exonerated the applicant and submitted charge sheet against other co-accused persons. During trial, on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the court summoned the applicant. It is next submitted that the trial court without application of judicial mind, summoned the applicant. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 482 B.N.S. 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. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. The applicant has been summoned after recording statement of P.W.1 wherein P.W. 1 has specifically stated against the applicant. The trial court has found evidence against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. 6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. It is apparent that learned Magistrate after applying judicial mind, summoned the applicant. It is not a case of false implication. No interference is warranted by this Court. 7. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad