Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137273 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6458 of 2025 Applicant :- Aditya Kumar @ Vickky Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel has filed his power on behalf of informant today in the Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Sessions Trial no. 87 of 2019 (State Vs. Aditya Kumar @ Viccky) arising out of Case Crime No. 214 of 2019, under Sections 307, 326A, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant was named in the F.I.R., and his complicity in commission of alleged could not be disclosed during investigation as a result of which, his name has been dropped in the charge sheet. He further submits that during the trial, the name of the applicant emerged in the statement of P.W.2 pursuant to which on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned to face trial. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant has been falsely roped in the present case when as a matter of fact he has already been dropped during the investigation. Learned counsel It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 5. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 6. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 12.8.2025/S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad