HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10247 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 143 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 125, 109(1) of B.N.S. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Kakore, District Bulandshahar, with a prayer to grant them anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no. 3 has been arrested by the police on 21.09.2026, therefore, he may be permitted to delete the name of applicant no. 3 from the array of the parties. 4. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant is allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete the name of applicant no. 3 from the array of the parties, during the course of the day. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest the applicants. The F.I.R. of the present case was lodged against 13 named accused. The injured who are two in number, have not sustained injuries which are commensurate to the number of accused. There Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Bahadur Singh Chand Mohammad And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) are cross version and from the side of the applicant, one of the co-accused Hanif, has lodged an F.I.R. in which two injured are also accused. The identically situated co-accused Waseem has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 B.N.S.S. No. 7890 of 2026. The other co-accused Farman, Haseen Mukeem and Nizam, have been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18678 of 2026. The criminal antecedent of five cases of applicant no. 1 has been explained in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 29.09.2026, criminal history of one case of the applicant no. 2 has been explained in paragraph no. 7 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants undertake to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, they do not dispute the factual aspect. 8. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record. 9. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. NABAIL No. 10247 of 2026 2 10. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. 11. 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 merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 12. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest of the applicants- Chand Mohammad, Nadim involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned or the court concerned. (ii) The applicants 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; (iii) 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 her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and NABAIL No. 10247 of 2026 3 (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 13. 13. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants, before the concerned court. September 30, 2026 A.P. Pandey NABAIL No. 10247 of 2026 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad