Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103605 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4022 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandrabali And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh,Seema Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jyoti Bhushan 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 Case Crime No. 196 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 read with 34 IPC, Police Station Gambhirpur, District Azamgarh, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel next submits that the applicants have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. It has further been submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents and that applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and 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. He lastly submits that the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 4. Learned A.G.A.has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 5. Perusal of the record shows that there is specific allegations against the applicants. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, has held 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. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is refused. 8. However, it is open for the applicants to move regular bail before the concerned Court below. In case, such an application for bail is moved before the concerned Court below, then it is expected that the concerned Court below shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the necessary guidelines for grant of bail as laid down in the matter of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021), without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad