Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7831 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 318 of 2025 Applicant :- Durgasharan Alias Gangasharan Alias Bholu Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Pandey,Shailesh Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; 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 bail in Case Crime No.281 of 2024, under Sections 109, 352, 351(3) B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Lar, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; on perusal of F.I.R., no offence is made out against the applicant. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. As per F.I.R. allegation, applicant and co- accused assaulted the injured. It is submitted that injured has received simple injury. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 482 B.N.S.S. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The prosecution is supported by medical examination report; injured has received grievous injury and the applicant has criminal history which has not been disclosed in anticipatory bail application. It is not a case of false implication. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. 6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. No interference is warranted by this Court as injured has received grievous injury and Investigating Officer has collected evidence against the applicant. 7. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. 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 :- 17.1.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad