Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39709 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2026 of 2025 Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Rai,Shambhavi Nandan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Shambhavi Nandan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Harsh Mishra and Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 451 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2) (a), 352, 351(3), 333 of BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Badlapur, District- Jaunpur, till conclusion of trial. 3. Allegation against the applicant is that applicant and named accused persons kidnapped the informant's son and they physically tortured, as a result thereof, informant's son died. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Initially he claimed for parity with co-accused, namely, Monu Singh @ Baba @ Shubham and Fakkar Singh @ Rajesh Singh, who have been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench vide orders dated 28.02.2025 and 10.03.2025 respectively as applicant's case is similar to the co-accused. Applicant has five cases of criminal history, the same has been explained in bail application. In para 24 of bail application it is submitted that applicant is Head Master at Primary School, Nevada, Mukhlishpur, Jaunpur. Allegation in FIR is false and baseless. Investigation is pending. No charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and has submitted that applicant is a criminal minded person and on his persuasion, various persons assaulted the informant's son. Applicant has previously convicted in other cases and on release on bail he committed offence in instant case and NBW has been issued and he is not co-operating in investigation. On perusal of injury report, 18 injuries have been found over the body of the deceased. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Anticipatory bail 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. Considering the argument advanced by counsel for both the parties, it is evident from record that deceased has sustained 18 grievous injuries all over the body, due to which he died, moreover, NBW has been issued against the applicant and he is not co-operating in investigation proceedings and role of the applicant is different from the role of co-accused, who have been granted anticipatory bail, as such, parity with co-accused is denied. Moreover, applicant having previous enmity with the informant. I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicant- Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu, is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad