Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140883 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6440 of 2025 Applicant :- Furkan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- C.D.Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 777 of 2015, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhopa, District- Muzaffar Nagar. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. In the first information report, eleven persons including the applicant are nominated. As per the first information report, the applicant was alleged to be armed with a lathi. As per the medical report of Afroz, she sustained six injuries. The injury no. 2 was caused by firearm and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. It is next contended that the first information report was lodged in the year 2015. After investigation, final report was submitted in the year 2016. The informant filed a protest petition before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Muzaffar Nagar against the submission of final report by the Police authorities. Thereafter, further investigation was directed by the court concerned. Again, final report was submitted in the year 2019. The informant again filed a protest petition. The said petition was treated as a complaint case and the applicant was summoned to face trial by the learned Magistrate. The applicant preferred a criminal revision before the Court of Session. The said revision was rejected by the Session Judge. Thereafter, the applicant had approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court vide order dated 20.04.2023 passed in Matter Under Article 227 No. 1673 of 2023 (Furkan and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and Another) remanded the matter back to learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order. Consequent, thereto, the applicant had been summoned to face trial. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Taiyyab has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4273 of 2025 (Taiyyab vs. State of U.P. and Another). The applicant claims parity. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant, identically placed co- accused Taiyyab has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant, the applicant 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 applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. In the event of arrest, the applicant Furkan, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a 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 applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (ii) the applicant 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 applicant 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 concerned court. 8. 8. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same. 9. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad