Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45494 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2243 of 2025 Applicant :- Ibrahim Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, counsel for the opposite party no. 2; 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.37 of 2025, under Sections 333, 69, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Shahganj, District Agra, 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. Instant F.I.R. is counter blast to the complaint lodged against the relative of the informant. The applicant and informant are neighbour and allegation alleged in the F.I.R. is false, baseless and not supported by any evidence. There is no medical examination report. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 482 B.N.S.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 the applicant is named in the F.I.R. From the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. 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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 482 B.N.S.S., I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 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 :- 2.4.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad