HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2365 of 2026 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off. 2. Heard Sri Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0530 of 2023, under Sections 323, 324, 452, 308 IPC, Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits, however, this is second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his earlier anticipatory bail application has been dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3080 of 2024 but at the time of first anticipatory bail application some relevant facts could not be placed before this Court and from the record it reflects, applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter. 5. At this stage, learned AGA submits, as this is second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicant, therefore, it can only be entertained on new grounds which are not available earlier and as according to learned counsel for applicant the grounds which were though available but could not be placed before this Court at the time of first anticipatory bail application, therefore, instant second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Sharma, Vinay Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nitish Sharma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) therefore, instant application should be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for applicant it reflects, the instant second anticipatory bail application has been filed on the ground that earlier some relevant facts could not be placed before this Court while deciding the first anticipatory bail application, therefore, it reflects, the instant second anticipatory bail application has been filed on the basis of already existed grounds which cannot be termed as new grounds. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected. 9. It is made clear that observations made while deciding instant anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. March 19, 2026 AK Pandey NABAIL No. 2365 of 2026 2 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad