HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9399 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 Criminal Case No. 3208 of 2026 (arising out of Case Crime No. 527 of 2025), under Sections 110, 352 and 115(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District -Bulandshahr, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above- mentioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are cross versions and both the sides have received injuries. Three persons from the side of the applicant have received injuries including mother of the applicant. The offences in question in the event of a conviction do not entail a punishment of more than 7 years. The applicant was not arrested during investigation and now once a charge sheet has been filed, he is no longer required for any custodial interrogation. 4. The Learned counsel for informant has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has submitted that the applicant is one of the main accused in the present case. The three injured have received grievous injuries and one of the injured Sunil has received injuries, which could be categorized to be dangerous to life as he has received a fracture of right parietal bone. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the cross version has been lodged only to circumvent the prosecution in the present case. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has adopted the submissions made by learned counsel for the informant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Agarval Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sachin .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 8. The applicant was not arrested during the investigation. There are cross cases and both the sides claim injuries. In the opinion of the Court, it would not be appropriate to hold which side is the aggressor at the present stage. The offences in question in the event of a conviction do not entail a punishment of more than 7 years. The offences under section 110 BNS is triable by Court of Sessions. 9. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the prima facie opinion of the Court, case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, they have been appropriately explained and in the opinion of the Court, applicant is not likely to repeat such offence in the near future. 10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 11. In the event of the arrest of the applicant -Sachin, he 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 himself 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 him 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; 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 13. 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. 9399 of 2026 2 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad