Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112919 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4691 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Shahi,Parijat Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saroj Jaiswal,Shiv Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. At the outset, counsel for the applicants prays for withdrawal of the present application on behalf of applicant nos.2 and 5. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of applicant nos.2 and 5. 2. Despite time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by counsel for the opposite parties. 3. On 25.11.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order : "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Jitendra, Hiralal, Pawan, Chandan and Namilal alias Navmilal, in Case Crime No.- 377 of 2023, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 325 ,427, 308 IPC, Police Station- Sevrahi, District- Kushinagar. Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Put up this case on 14.7.2025 as a fresh case before appropriate Court. Till then, in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on interim anticipatory bail 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 Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall make themself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (ii) The applicants 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 he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P./C.P./A.C.P concerned. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The applicants are directed to produce a certified copy of this order of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P./C.P./A.C.P concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress who shall ensure the compliance of present order." 4. Heard counsel for the applicants and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 5. Insofar as applicant no.1-Jitendra, applicant no.3- Pawan and applicant no.4-Chandan are concerned, counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, specific role of causing injury to Aditya (brother of the informant) and Sumanth Ojha (father of the informant) has been assigned to co-accused Navami Lal and Hira Lal. The medical report with regard to injured Aditya is not available on the case diary. As per the medical report of injured Sumant Ojha, he sustained four injuries. The injury nos. 1 and 2 were referred for X-ray examination. As per the report of radiologist fracture was seen on the skull region. The case of the applicants is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Hira Lal and Navami Lal. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. Further, during the course of investigation, the applicants were granted the benefit of Section 41-A I.P.C. Investigation has been completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicants had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicants have been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for applicants further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicants have no criminal history. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41-A I.P.C. also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years. 10. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicants were arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicants had not co- operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicants and the applicants have been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected. 11. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would dis-entitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 12. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State. 13. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact as per the contents of the first information report, specific role of causing injury to Aditya (brother of the informant) and Sumanth Ojha (father of the informant) has been assigned to co-accused Navami Lal and Hira Lal; vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants; during the course of investigation, the applicants were granted the benefit of Section 41-A I.P.C., no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of interim anticipatory bail has been pointed out by learned A.G.A., the fact that the offences against the applicants are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), charge-sheet has been filed, the applicants had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 14. In the event of arrest, the applicant no.1- Jitendra, applicant no.3-Pawan and applicant no.4-Chandan be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial in Case Crime No.377 of 2023, under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325, 427, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Sevrahi, District Kushinagar, on furnishing fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (ii) the applicants 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; (iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they has passport the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court. 15. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same. 16. The application with regard to applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 is hereby disposed of. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Manish Kr Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad