HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9573 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Sri Akash Garg, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant,which is taken on record. 2. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Akash Garg, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.110 of 2026, under Sectios 109(1), 115(2), 131, 351(2) BNS, Police Station- Nakur, District Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-mentioned case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not named in the FIR. The injured received injuries in a road traffic accident, but subsequently a case of assault was manufactured and the FIR was lodged on the next day. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the initial medical examination, no grievous injury or any injury which could be categorized as dangerous to life was found. On an application moved before the District Magistrate, a fresh medical examination was conducted after more than one month of the incident, in which grievous injuries were noted on the head of the injured Rajbir. Co-accused Rishipal has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Singh, Ajeet Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rishabh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL No.9379 of 2026. The applicant has no previous criminal case to his credit and it is only post his implication in the present case that another case has been lodged against the applicant, in which applicant is contemplating his legal remedies. 6. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have contended that the injured Rajbir sustained serious head injuries. His skull bones were found fractured in the fresh medical examination conducted pursuant to the order of the District Magistrate. Fracture of the right parietal bone extending to the right temporal bone and fracture of the left temporal bone were found. The injuries in question are dangerous to life. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The applicant is not stated to have any criminal antecedents, however, post his implication in the present case, one another case has been lodged against him. From the perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is a property dispute between the family of the applicant and the injured. Co- accused Amarnath is the father of the applicant. Another accused Rishipal is the grand father of the applicant. 9. Initially, the FIR was registered for offences under Sections 131(2), 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS. The second medical examination, in which grievous injuries have been found, was conducted after more than one month of the occurrence, and even in the second medical examination, old fractures have been noted. 10. Prima facie, in the opinion of the Court, there are contradictory medical opinions and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in causing the head injuries. In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Similarly situated co-accused Rishipal has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 11. 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 NABAIL No. 9573 of 2026 2 enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 12. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 13. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Rishabh, 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; 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 15. 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 16, 2026 S.A. NABAIL No. 9573 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad