Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103732 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3544 of 2025 Applicant :- Seema And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Dubey,Rishu Mishra Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.9 of 2025, under Sections 125, 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 333, 117(2) and 110 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, inspite of the fact that there is no credible evidence against them, yet the investigation officer submitted the charge in per-functionary manner without any cogent evidence against them. He further submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and the applicants undertake to co-operate during the trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. 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. 4. Learned A.G.A.opposed the anticipatory bail and argued that credible evidence has been collected during the investigation, which has culminated in submission of charge sheet. 5. Perusal of the record shows that there is specific allegation against the applicant. The Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation has collected credible evidence against the applicants and their complicity in commission of offence is supported by oral as well as documentary evidence. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by the 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. 6. 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 applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 AS Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad