HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8631 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.177 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 115(2) B.N.S., P.S.- Sarai Akil, District- Kaushambi, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends her arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not been given the role of assault. The only allegation against the applicant is of threatening the informant. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused Chandrakant Mishra. The Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a lady and she has a criminal history of one case, however, she is not a previous convict. Similarly situated co-accused Rakesh Mishra has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8540 of 2026. 4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the factual submissions made by the Learned counsel for the applicant. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 6. The applicant although named in the First Information Report has only been given the role of threatening along with the other accused. The specific role of assault by using a lathi has been given to the co-accused Chandrakant Mishra. Taking note of the fact that the applicant is the wife of Chandrakant Mishra and co-accused Kriti Mishra is the daughter of Chandrakant Mishra, false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. The criminal history of the applicant has been satisfactorily explained. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jainendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kumar Parikshit, Ritesh Kumar Archana Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Archana Devi, she shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:- i. the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case. September 9, 2026 Sachin NABAIL No. 8631 of 2026 2 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad