HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8126 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Sri Rahul Kumar Pandey has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Bishram Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Chandra Shekhar Sharan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 239 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2), 333 and 109 of B.N.S., Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. It is contended 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. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is a cross case to the present case and also eleven persons have been named in the present case, in which except the present applicant other accused persons have already been granted bail. It is next contended that at this stage the question, who is the aggressor cannot be decided. It is also submitted that applicant has no criminal history. It is also submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant as per first information report. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bishram Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kameshwar Yadav Alias Kameshwarnath Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, 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. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and is submitted that there is a specific allegation against the applicant that he has inflicted wound on the head of Kanhaiya Yadav by the hard blunt object. It is also submitted that in the cross case, the charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC. and false and frivolous case has been filed against the applicant just to pressurize them. 6. Similar contention has been raised by learned A.G.A. for the State, who has supported the argument raised by the learned counsel for first informant. 7. From the perusal of the record, there is a cross case to the present case. Eleven accused persons have been named in the first information report, who are alleged to have assaulted the informant by hard blunt object like lathi-danda and the applicant has been attributed to have assaulted Kanhaiya Yadav by hard blunt object whereas co-accused Avnish Yadav and Abhishek Yadav have also been attributed the role of causing assault by hard and blunt object on the heads of Amrendra Yadav and Umesh Yadav, respectively. He further submitted that Avnish Yadav and Abhishek Yadav have already been granted regular bail by Co-ordinate bench of this Court, whereas co-accused Rambhawan Yadav and two others co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by another Co- ordinate bench of this Court. 8. 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, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must also evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding NABAIL No. 8126 of 2025 2 anticipatory bail, submissions of 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 merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Kameshwar Yadav Alias Kameshwarnath Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 12. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein. October 7, 2025 Neetu NABAIL No. 8126 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad