HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9779 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.368 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125, 121(1), 132 BNS and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest the applicant. The FIR was lodged by the police officer- Shri Virendra Kumar against the applicant and 5 other co-accused; general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the FIR; no one has received any injury in the said case, however, it is alleged that the accused persons named in the FIR were trying to cause death. It is further contended that identically situated co-accused Saurabh Chauhan and X (Minor) were granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.09.2026 and 16.09.2026, passed in NABAIL NO.9325 of 2026 and NABAIL No.9305 of 2026 respectively. Criminal history of one other case of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no.18 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arfi, Ram Jatan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prashant Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) investigation and trial and shall appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 5. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record. 6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the NABAIL No. 9779 of 2026 2 officer to arrest the accused. 8. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Prashant Sharma, involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station or the court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 10. 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 21, 2026 Nitendra NABAIL No. 9779 of 2026 3 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad