Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73507 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3340 of 2025 Applicant :- Sumit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sakshi Jaiswal,Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishe Pandey,G.A.,Praveen Singh Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Pandey, counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Dinesh Tiwari, learned AGA for the State, and perused the material placed on record. 2. This application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 76, 310(2) B.N.S., Police Station Jani, District Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations in the first information report eleven accused including the applicant are alleged to have assaulted three persons namely; Sanej, Vinod and Km. Payal. As per the medical report of Sanej and Km. Payal, the injuries received by them were simple in nature. The injured Vinod sustained six injuries. As per the report of NCCT head and X-ray report, the injuries no. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were simple in nature, whereas no opinion was given with regard to the injuries no. 4 and 5. It is next contended that injured Vinod was further examined on 20.03.2025 at a private hospital. The doctor of the said hospital found a fracture of spine (L2 vertebrae). It is contended that the said injury was not noticed in the medical examination conducted at CHC, Panchli Khurd, Meerut. The said injury report is fabricated and not genuine. Further, in view of two medical reports, there is no clarity with regard to the injuries sustained by Vinod. Further, a vague role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused the injuries to Vinod. The nature of injuries received by the injured persons shows that there was no intent to murder. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is pending and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact, that as per the medical report of Sanej and Km. Payal, the injuries received by them were simple in nature, the injured Vinod sustained six injuries, as per the report of NCCT head and X-ray report, the injuries no. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were simple in nature, whereas no opinion was given with regard to the injuries no. 4 and 5, in view of the subsequent medical conducted at a private hospital there is no clarity with regard to the injuries sustained by Vinod, a vague role has been assigned to the applicant, the applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused the injuries to Vinod, at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report. 7. In the event of arrest, the applicant- Sumit be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193 (3) BNSS, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. 8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 9. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 10. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. 11. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Lbm/- Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad