Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82368 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2508 of 2025 Applicant :- Than Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 970 of 2019 (Smt. Gudiya Vs. Than Singh and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 304, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicants may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. The F.I.R. dated 14.03.2019 was lodged on the basis of an application dated 28.01.2019 moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with regard to an incident dated 25.11.2018. The allegations made in the F.I.R. were that on the date of occurrence when husband of the informant along with his elder brother were returning after attending a dinner party the accused-Than Singh, Dilip, Sunil, Anil and Lalit started assaulting them with lathi-danda, but however they managed to escape and reached the home. Thereafter, after some time all the accused persons reached at the house of the informant and while hurling abuses they started dragging the husband of the informant. When mother-in-law of the informant tried to refrain them, the accused-Than Singh assaulted her with the butt of gun, on account of which she fell down. Thereafter, Dilip and Pawan fired from their gun which bullets hit to Anil and Lalit. The accused also assaulted other persons with lathi-danda and Farsa. The mother-in-law of the informant died died on the spot. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that postmortem of the deceased was conducted but cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. In the viscera report no poison was found. Learned counsel further submits that after investigation police submitted final report, upon which protest petition was filed by the informant, whereupon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 09.09.2019 rejected the final report and treated the protest petition as a complaint. Thereafter, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and applicants have been summoned. Thereafter, the court concerned issued non bailable warrant dated 15.01.2024 against the applicants. Learned counsel has argued that firstly bailable warrants should have been issued, thereafter, on their absence non bailable warrants could have been passed, but the court concerned has directly issued the non bailable warrants against them which is against the prescribed procedure as well as against the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others : (2007) 12 SCC 1. The para-53 of the said judgment reads as under: "53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This court be when: • it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or • the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or • it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately." 5. Thus, it has been argued that there is an apprehension that the applicants may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. It was also submitted that applicants undertakes to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the court concerned. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, but could not dispute the facts asserted on behalf of applicants. 7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Than Singh, Dilip, Pawan Singh, Sachin and Sunil, involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicants shall attend the court proceedings as and when required. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise or to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) the applicants shall cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. 11. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad