HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7093 of 2025 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.139 of 2025, under sections 317(2), 317(3), 318(1), 338, 336(1), 340(1), 61(1) B.N.S., P.S. Hathras Gate, District Hathras. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Krishna Verma, who was arrested at the spot. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Arjun Sharma @ Anuj Sharma has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 16.6.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4374 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Investigation is still pending. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned brief holder 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 counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, and the fact that the name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Krishna Verma, who was arrested at the spot, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence, identically placed co-accused Arjun Sharma @ Anuj Sharma has been granted bail by this court, 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 Rohit @ Rajababu, involved in the aforesaid Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rohit @ Rajababu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court. (iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court. (v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. 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. September 1, 2025 S.S. NABAIL No. 7093 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad