HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9664 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and the Learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.110 of 2026, under Sections 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. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that although the applicant is named in the First Information Report (FIR), however, his implication is absolutely false. Injured had received injuries in a road traffic accident, but a false case of assault was manufactured and FIR was lodged on the next day. 4. 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, who is the father of the applicant, and co-accused Rishabh, who is the son of the applicant, have all been implicated due to previous enmity and they have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL Nos.9379 of 2026 and 9573 of 2026 respectively. The case of the applicant stands on a Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Singh, Ajeet Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amarnath .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) similar footing. The applicant has a criminal history of one other case, which has been lodged post implication of the applicant in the present case. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the case of the applicant stands on a similar footing to that of the co-accused. 6. I have considered the submissions made by Learned counsel for the parties. 7. The applicant has correctly explained his criminal antecedents and in the prima facie opinion of the Court, there is no likelihood of the applicant repeating any such crime in the near future. There appears to be a property dispute between the family of the applicant and the injured. The applicant’s father and son have both been arrayed as an accused in the present case. 8. 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. 9. 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 facts and circumstances, as discussed above, the false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Similarly situated co-accused Rishipal and Rishabh have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 10. 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 applicant on anticipatory bail. 11. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 12. In the event of the arrest of the applicant - Amarnath, he shall be NABAIL No. 9664 of 2026 2 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; 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 14. 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 17, 2026 Kushal NABAIL No. 9664 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad