HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8819 of 2026 with CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8829 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present applications have been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 134 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110 of B.N.S., P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi, with a prayer to grant them Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Vajpeyi, Mayank Chandra, Praveen Kumar Singh, Surya Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vibhu Rai Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Singh, Mayank Chandra, Surya Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Krishna Pratap Singh, Kunwar Bikram Suryabansh, Vibhu Rai, Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Anamika Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Abhishek Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) anticipatory bail. 3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants and their two sons namely Ranveer Singh and Aryaveer Singh. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 20.03.2026 at 20:15 hours, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.03.2026 at 2:34 hours, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110 of B.N.S. The informant alleged that the applicants and other co-accused abused and assaulted the first informant and her family members, pulled her stole around her neck and attempted to cause injuries to the informant's side. The injured Viraj Singh, Shivanshi Singh, Kiran Singh and Vishwajeet Singh, sustained injuries in the alleged incident. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case; they have nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants and informant's side are close relatives and a dispute was going on between them in respect of ancestral property. The present case is a cross case and from the side of the applicant, a Case Crime No. 214 of 2026, was registered against the present informant party on 05.05.2026, at P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi, in pursuance of order passed by learned magistrate under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. The chargesheet has been submitted in the aforesaid case crime number on 09.04.2026 and the learned court concerned took cognizance of offence vide order dated 01.07.2026. From the side of applicants, the applicant Abhishek Singh and his son Aryaveer Singh sustained injuries, whereas from the side of present informant, injured Viraj Singh, Shivanshi Singh, Kiran Singh and Vishwajeet Singh, have sustained injuries in the alleged incident. The injuries of aforesaid injured persons are simple in nature. No one sustained fracture or grievous injury in the alleged incident, therefore, no prima facie offence under Section 109(1), 110 of B.N.S. is made out against the applicants. 5. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that the applicants challenged the legality and validity of the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 134 of 2026, by way of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7093 of 2026, and their arrest was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court vide NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026 2 order dated 02.04.2026. The applicants were not arrested in this case during course of investigation. They cooperated in the investigation. Now the chargeshet has been submitted on 26.04.2026, and the learned court concerned took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 01.06.2026. The investigating officer, during course of investigation, recorded statements of Dr. K.K. Singh and Dr. Shivesh Jaiswal, who stated that injured sustained injuries and they were medically examined by them, however, no one stated that the injured sustained any fracture on their person. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicants further submits that all the injuries are simple in nature and there is no supplementary medical report in the present case. A questionnaire from the court concerned was obtained by the applicants in respect of supplementary medical report of the injured which has been appended in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8829 of 2026. As per the questionnaire, no supplementary medical report is available in the record of the present case. 7. Further submission was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that the applicant Abhishek Singh and his son namely Aryaveer Singh were also subjected to physical assault and sustained injuries during the said altercation. They were medically examined in the District Hospital and their medical examination reports have been appended alongwith the present application. 8. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that applicants' son Ranveer Singh and Aryaveer Singh are aged about 13 years and 19 years respectively. Both of them are pursing their studies. It is next submitted that as per the statement of doctors, injuries cannot be categorized as grievous in nature or dangerous to life. Even if the prosecution version is accepted to be true at its face value, even then by no stretch of imagination, an offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out. Section 109(1) and Section 110 have been wrongly invoked in order to keep the applicants behind the bar. It is further submitted that both sides have received injuries and who is the aggressor, the said question cannot be answered at this stage. The trial court, after taking entire evidence on record, would decide this question as to which party was aggressor. It is next submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedent to their credit. The NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026 3 chargesheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicants. Learned Senior counsel for the applicants lastly contended that the applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required by the court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the trial, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the court. 9. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that Crl. Misc. Writ Petition filed by the applicants was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2026. From the side of informant, four persons received injuries. The incident is admitted to the applicants. The anticipatory bail application moved by the present applicants are liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no allegation against the applicants that they do not cooperate with the investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicants. The applicants and the informant are close relatives. Both sides lodged F.I.R. against each others. From the side of informant, four persons sustained injuries on their body, however, no injury was opined to be dangerous to life or grievous in nature. There is no supplement medical report on record. A cross case was lodged from the side of applicants, wherein after due investigation, chargesheet has been submitted on 19.06.2026. The applicants were not arrested during course of investigation and now the chargesheet has been submitted against them on 26.04.2026. The learned court concerned took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 01.06.2026. The applicants were not arrested during course of investigating, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicants. 12. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026 4 "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non- bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." 13. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter. 14. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026 5 (i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicants- Anamika Singh and Abhishek Singh involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (ii) The applicants shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial. (iii) 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; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 15. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned court. September 14, 2026 A.P. Pandey NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026 6 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad