HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7192 of 2025 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the applicants, is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajit Kumar Pathak, counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2. Perused the material placed on record. 3. The instant application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No. 169 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 131, 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, fifteen named accused including the applicants and ten unknown persons are alleged to have caused injuries to six persons. As per the case diary medical reports of Ankit, Arun Saroj and Ajeet Bhartiya are available. According to the supplementary medical reports Ankit and Ajeet Kumar Bhartiya received injuries, which were simple in nature. Arun Saroj received a fracture of radius and ulna bone. It is contended that although the injury of Arun Saroj was grievous in nature but not dangerous to life. In the alleged incident, from the side of the applicants, Santosh Kumar Bharti has also received injuries. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicants. The applicants have not been nominated as the principal offender who caused the grievous injuries to the three injured. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prem Chand Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajit Kumar Pathak, G.A. Ramashankar Saroj And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicants with the offence. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Investigation is still pending. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest and in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they 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. 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 case diary Ankit, Arun Saroj and Ajeet Bhartiya received injuries, according to the supplementary medical reports Ankit and Ajeet Kumar Bhartiya received injuries, which were simple in nature, Arun Saroj received a fracture of radius and ulna bone, although the injury of Arun Saroj was grievous in nature but not dangerous to life, in the alleged incident, from the side of the applicants, Santosh Kumar Bharti has also received injuries, a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant, the applicants have not been nominated as the principal offender who caused the grievous injuries to the three injured, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicants, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report. 8. In the event of arrest, the applicants- Ramashankar Saroj, Umashankar Saroj, Ram Chandra Saroj, Vikas @Vikki and Smt. Chanela Devi 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. NABAIL No. 7192 of 2025 2 9. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to 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 11, 2025 S.S. NABAIL No. 7192 of 2025 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad