Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49202 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2599 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramcharan @ Golu Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel 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.0464 of 2024, under Sections 504, 506, 306 I.P.C., P.S. Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh, during pendency of the trial. 3. Allegation in the F.I.R. is that applicant on pretext of marriage developed physical relationship with deceased. Thereafter, he refused to marry with victim (deceased). After some time, deceased's marriage talk was initiated with some other person and applicant interfered in that marriage, at last, the victim committed suicide. 4. 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. has been lodged through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after about delay of eight months. All the allegations alleged in the F.I.R. is false and baseless. The victim was major and relationship between the victim(deceased) with the applicant was consensual. The applicant has not made any attempt to cancel the marriage of the victim. The allegations are not supported by any evidence. 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that on perusal of contents of F.I.R., prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Charge sheet has been submitted and prosecution is supported by the statement of informant and other material evidence. 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. 6. 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. 7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. On perusal of F.I.R., prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Now charge sheet has been submitted and I.O. has collected sufficient evidence against the applicant. No interference is warranted by this Court. 8. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 9. 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 :- 7.4.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad