HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4267 of 2026 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. Heard learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as, Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Chandawak, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no concern with the offence alleged against him. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence has been committed by the applicant. It is submitted that the main accused Vishnu Mishra and the deceased were close friends and the incident was a result of sudden provocation and a verbal altercation between them. It is submitted that no specific weapon or role has been assigned to the applicant in the recovery memo or in the FIR and the allegations are of a general and vague nature. Learned counsel submits that medical report does not support the ocular version of the FIR, as there is only one injury reported, whereas nine persons are alleged to have attacked the deceased. The applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. In case the applicant is granted Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bindu Kumari, Vivek Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vivek Kumar Singh Suryakant Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) anticipatory bail, there is no possibility of misusing the liberty of anticipatory bail. Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have contended that the accusation levelled against the applicant is specific. They submit that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem head injury. They pray that the present anticipatory bail application be dismissed. 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. In Srikant Upadhyay Vs.State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine 9425, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases, it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case Insofar as the allegations are concerned, the same is very much apparent on record. In this case, bare perusal of the first information report itself shows that the allegations are specific against the applicant. There are antemortem injuries and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to antemortem injury. The applicant is named in the FIR and during the course of investigation, independent witnesses also supported the prosecution version. In case the applicant has any NABAIL No. 4267 of 2026 2 grievance, he may avail remedy before the appropriate forum. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicants in the aforesaid case. Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected. May 12, 2026 Brijesh NABAIL No. 4267 of 2026 3 (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad