HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7254 of 2025 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Vakalatnama, filed by Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, Advocate on behalf of the informant, is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the applicants as well as Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, counsel for the informant. Perused the material placed on record. 3. This application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No.52 of 2025, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 333, 115(2), 352 B.N.S., P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj. 4. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report the co- accused Rinku @ Saurabh and Praveen are alleged to have fired and caused injury to Akash Pundir and Gayatri Devi. As per the medical report of the two injured, the injuries received by them were simple in nature. It is contended that no overact has been assigned to the applicants. The case of the applicants is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Rinku @ Saurabh and Praveen. The nature of the injuries shows that there was no intention to murder. At this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicants with the offence The criminal history of the applicants has been explained in para 11 to 16 of the bail application. Investigation is pending and the applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Sheel Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raghvendra @ Raghvendra Singh And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report. 7. Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact that as per the first information report the co-accused Rinku @ Saurabh and Praveen are alleged to have fired and caused injury to Akash Pundir and Gayatri Devi, as per the medical report of the two injured, the injuries received by them were simple in nature, at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail till the submission of police report. 8. In the event of arrest, the applicants Raghvendra @ Raghvendra Singh be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under section 193(3) B.N.S.S. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) The applicants 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 or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. 9. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to NABAIL No. 7254 of 2025 2 file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. 10. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants. 11. The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. 12. The application stands disposed of. September 8, 2025 S.S. NABAIL No. 7254 of 2025 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad