LAIKRAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

 CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
                  BNSS No. - 4362 of 2026

Laikram
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Ankit Kumar, Shrawan Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : G.A.

Court No. - 71
                     HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and
Learned AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has
been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail
in Case Crime No. 103 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 308 IPC, P.S.
Dhanari, District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that initially the NCR
was registered by the informant against the accused-applicant and co-
accused for assaulting the informant and his family members. Further
submits that during the investigation, the applicant has not been arrested. It
is the counterblast case. Initially, the sister-in-law of the applicant has
lodged the F.I.R. against the cousin brother of informant, which led to the
lodging of the NCR in counterblast. Further submits that on the basis of
injury report does not show injury fatal to life. The summons and non-
bailable warrant have not been served on the applicant. The applicant want
to join the trial, but he apprehends the arrest. He has no criminal history.
Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

5. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful
judgments of Hon?ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia
Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC
                                                        NABAIL No. 4362 of 2026
                                 2


694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is consistently held by
Hon?ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should
considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or
apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation,
criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of
custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in
investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

6. This Court while considering that during the investigation, the accused
has not been arrested and further considering the gravity of accusation and
apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of
the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered
view to grant anticipatory bail.

7. The applicant- Laikarm involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with following conditions :-

(i) 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
or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 4362 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
                                    determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
                                    expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
                                    to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
                                    unaffected by anything said in this order.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Abhishek Sri.
                                                                                               (Avnish Saxena,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad