HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9349 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants in Case Crime No. 24 of 2026, under Sections 123, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District -Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. The Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the daughter of the informant, who stated to be the injured in the present case. The allegation is of administering some poisonous substance to the victim. The victim was medically examined by a private doctor, who is said to have supposedly extracted some material from the body of the victim and sent for toxicological examination for determination of poison. However, the Forensic Science Laboratory has returned the same by stating that the FSL is authorized to accept samples only from the government hospitals or as directed by the Courts. He further contends that there is no material to indicate that the victim was ever fed any poisonous substance. He further argued that similarly situated co-accused, Shahnuma, had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL No. 6055 of 2026. The applicants were also co-applicants in the above- mentioned anticipatory bail application, but due to non-explanation of their criminal antecedents, the Learned counsel for the applicants was permitted to withdraw the bail applications with the liberty of filing a fresh application. This second bail application may be considered afresh and may be treated to be the first bail application of the applicants. The applicants have one previous case registered against them, in which the applicants are on bail. The offences in the previous case do not in the event of a conviction entail imprisonment of more than 7 years. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Srivastava, Ch. Dil Nisar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mustakeem And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, but could not dispute the factual assertions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 7. The applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim. At present, there is no definitive medical evidence to indicate that the injured was fed any poisonous substance. The two other injuries that have been found on the person of the injured have not been opined to be grievous in nature or dangerous to life. Similarly situated co-accused Shahnuma, had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL No. 6055 of 2026. The husband of the injured has been granted regular bail. 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 -Mustakeem and Smt. Bhoori, 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 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. 9349 of 2026 2 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad