Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14207 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 332 of 2025 Applicant :- Molayam Rajbhar Urf Mulayam Rajbhar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bed Kant Mishra,Neetu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hare Ram Yadav Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No 171 of 2024, under Sections 74, 115(2), 351(3), 352 of BNS and Section 9G/10 of POCSO Act, Police Station Chitbadagaon, District Ballia. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; Instant FIR has been lodged with malicious intention. Civil suit is pending between the parties. On perusal of FIR, no offence under the alleged sections is made out against the applicants. FIR is delayed by 5-6 days from the day of incident of which there is no plausible explanation. It is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that on perusal of FIR, there is direct and serious allegation against the applicants for physically misbehaved and assault with the victim. It is a crime against society. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected. 5. The object of anticipatory bail is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 6. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 7. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicants, Molayam Rajbhar @ Mulayam Rajbhar and Pintu Rajbhar, is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad