HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4321 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri Gambhir Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Chandrabhan Kushwaha, learned counsel for the informant and Learned AGA for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2015 (S.T. No. 35 of 2016) under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Rajpura, District- Sambhal, during pendency of the trial. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the matter is of the year 2015. The FIR has been lodged against four persons including the applicants. It is the allegation in the FIR that co-accused Satyapal has fired at Jhau, the injured. The accused applicants have not been charge sheeted as they were found not present during the incident at the place. After continuance of trial, the accused applicants have been summoned through the process under Section 319 CrPC. The injured P.W.2 who has initially stated that Satyapal has fired the shot at him, has now changed his version and stated that accused Vinod has opened fire at him. He submits that the accused applicants want to continue in the trial but apprehending arrest. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 4. Countering the argument, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the role is entirely of the applicants. The statement of the injured witness Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gambhir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Bhan Kushwaha, G.A. Devendr And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) has not been recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the injured has given deposition before the court on the basis of which, the accused applicants have been summoned. Hence, submitted that the application deserves to be rejected. 5. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is consistently held by Hon'ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk. 6. Considering that initial statement of the injured is pointing towards Satypal, the co-accused who open detrimental shot role subsequently assigned to the accused applicants, the gravity of accusation and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail. 7. The applicants- Devendr and Naresh involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions :- (i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. NABAIL No. 4321 of 2026 2 (iii) The applicants 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 BNSS. (iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. May 6, 2026 Sharad/- NABAIL No. 4321 of 2026 3 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad