2025:UHC:5208 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA/660/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that the alleged incident was happened 31.05.2025 and thereafter, first FIR was lodged on 04.06.2025 at 03.27 p.m. at police station – Mangalore, bearing FIR No. 437 of 2025 wherein applicants were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 115 (2), 126 (2), 190, 191 (2), 191 (3), 351 (2), 352 of BNS, 2023. He further submits that for the same incident another FIR was lodged by one Shamshad from applicants’ side on 04.06.2025 at 23.31 hours at police station – Mangalore, bearing FIR No. 439 of 2025 wherein four persons namely Ishtekar, Azam, Firoz @ Fauzi and Waseem were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 126 (2), 351 (2), 352 of BNS, 2023. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Safdar that applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground that for the same incident there is a cross FIR. He further submits that since there are cross FIRs, therefore, who is aggressor can only be decided in trial. He further submits that since FIR was lodged against the applicants at earlier point of time, therefore, there is an apprehension of arrest of the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that since there are cross versions and cross FIRs, therefore, it is admitted that incident was happened and if the incident was happened, therefore, it requires thorough investigation. 5. I found force on the submission of learned Addl. Advocate General, therefore, after taking into consideration that there are cross version of FIR and it is admitted that incident was happened, this Court is of the view that applicants do not deserve for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 20.06.2025. SKS 2025:UHC:5208