HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9410 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Babu Lal holding the brief of Sri Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Learned counsel for the applicants, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava holding the brief of Sri Udaybhan Shukla, Learned counsel for informant and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 58 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 551(2), 117(2), 109 BNS, Police Station- Kakod, District - Bulandshahar, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are ladies and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants have been shown to be armed with sticks and participated with the co-accused Surjeet, who is the husband of applicant no. 1, and Harendra Kumar, who is husband of applicant no. 2, along with three unknown persons for assaulting the injured. He further contends that the injured Raj Kumar has received five injuries and the injured Shiv Kumar has received seven injuries. The injuries of the injured Shiv Kumar and Raj Kumar have not been opined to be dangerous to life. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. There are cross versions and the husband of the applicant no. 2 is also an injured. The husband of the applicant no. 1 is the village Pradhan and it is due to political enmity that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Udaybhan Shukla Smt Rajni And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and contended that the co-accused, Harendra Kumar had applied for anticipatory bail before this Court and this Court has been pleased to reject his anticipatory bail. The case of the applicants stand on a similar footing to that of the co-accused, Harendra Kumar and they may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has also adopted the submissions made by learned counsel for the informant. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 7. There are cross cases. The applicants are ladies having no criminal antecedents. The husband of the applicant no. 1 is a village Pradhan and in the prima facie opinion of the Court, false implication of the applicants due to political enmity cannot be ruled out. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the injured Ram Kumar was complaining against the village Pradhan and had also moved some applications under Right to Information Act. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants. The applicants, being ladies, their case stands on a different footing from that of the co-accused, Harendra Kumar, whose anticipatory bail has been rejected. 8. 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 applicants on anticipatory bail. 9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. 10. In the event of the arrest of the applicants- Smt. Rajni and Smt. Anu @ Kamlesh, they 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of NABAIL No. 9410 of 2026 2 the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 12. 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 11, 2026 Sartaj NABAIL No. 9410 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad