Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32421 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1864 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramesh Pal Singh Alias Bunty Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Raj 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.27 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 121(2), 132, 125, 324(5), 326(g), 61(2) B.N.S.S., 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, I.P.C., Police Station Roravar, District Aligarh. 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. Applicant is not named in the FIR and having no concern with the alleged incident. Instant FIR has been lodged by Investigating Officer. Another FIR has also been lodged by Lekhpal as Case Crime No.26 of 2025. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. 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. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that named accused person and unknown person hurled stones on police party and burnt the vehicles of the police party. On account of stone pelting various persons have received injuries. Some of them have sustained grievous injuries. Eight vehicles were burnt and damaged. 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 both the parties. After perusal of record, it is apparent that incident occurred and in crowd applicant's role cannot be ascertained at this stage but injury report received by injured and vehicle damaged by crowd cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that it a case of false implication. No interference is warranted. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Ramesh Pal Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad