Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43186 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1734 of 2025 Applicant :- Dinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav 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 Case Crime No.508 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 131, 352 B.N.S., P.S. Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur, 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 and victim are neighbours and on account of property dispute, instant F.I.R. has been lodged only to harass the applicant. Earlier, the informant lodged F.I.R. against the applicant with regard to marpeet and after six months, present F.I.R. has been lodged under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. There is no evidence with regard to allegation alleged in the F.I.R. The investigation is going on. The applicant has no criminal history. 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. and counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The informant is a widow lady and allegation alleged in the F.I.R. is very much supported by evidence. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. It is not a case of false implication. 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. No interference is warranted by this Court. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 7. 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 :- 24.3.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad