Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30419 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 726 of 2025 Applicant :- Krishnanand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Srivastava,Priyanka Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 368 of 2021, under sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Haldharpur, District-Mau, during pendency of trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer has submitted chargesheet against the applicant only on the basis of statement of opposite party no. 2 and her family members. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 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. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 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 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Krishnanand, is rejected. 9. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 10. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Faridul Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad