Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83425 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3883 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahipal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Raj Shekhar Srivastava, 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. 27 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 115(2), 118(2), 352, 324(2) B.N.S., Police Station Gangoh, District Saharanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were not named in the first information report and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants were identified on the basis of CCTV footage. As per the allegations in the first information report ten named accused are alleged to have assaulted the informant- Bhupendra, his brother Rahul @ Jitendra and Naresh. As per the medical report of Rahul @ Jitendra, he received eight injuries. All the injuries were simple in nature, except injury nos. 2 and 5. The said injuries were not on vital part of the body. The same were although grievious in nature but not dangerous to life. The nature of injuries shows that there was no intent to murder. The injury received by other injured Bhupendra were found simple in nature. No injury report with regard to Naresh is available in the case diary. A vague role has been assigned to the applicants. The applicants have not been identified as the principal offenders, who caused the injuries no. 2 and 5 to Rahul @ Jitendra. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicants with the offence. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is pending and the applicants have apprehension of their 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 applicants 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 the applicants were not named in the first information report. The applicants were identified on the basis of CCTV footage, as per the medical report of Rahul @ Jitendra, he received eight injuries, all the injuries were simple in nature, except injury nos. 2 and 5, the said injuries were not on vital part of the body, the same were although grievious in nature but not dangerous to life, the nature of injuries shows that there was no intent to murder, the injury received by other injured Bhupendra was found simple in nature, no injury report with regard to Naresh is available in the case diary, a vague role has been assigned to the applicants, the applicants have not been identified as the principal offenders, who caused the injuries no. 2 and 5 to Rahul @ Jitendra, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report. 7. In the event of arrest, the applicants- Mahipal, Harpal and Anoj 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 applicants shall make themselves 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them 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 applicants. 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 applicants. 10. The applicants are 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 :- 19.5.2025 Lbm/- Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad