MANEENDRA NATH AND 1 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9665 of 2026

Maneendra Nath And 1 Others
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)             :     J.P. Kushwaha, Saroj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :     G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants; and Learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in Case Crime No. 12 of 2026 under Sections 115(2), 351(2),
3(5), 109, 333, 352 of B.N.S., 2023 Police Station Kachhwa, District-
Mirzapur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, as the
applicants apprehend their arrest in the aforesaid case.

3. The Learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in the present case and seek anticipatory bail on
the following grounds :-

i. Initially, the first information report was lodged for offences under
Sections 3(5), 351(2), 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. During investigation
Sections 109, 333 & 352 of the B.N.S., 2023 have been added.

ii. The investigation is still pending. The parties have arrived at a
compromise and on the basis of the compromise it is contended that a
petty dispute led to lodging of the first information report.

iii. The applicants is ready to cooperate with the investigation and will
render all assistance and will not abscond.

iv. The applicants have no criminal antecedents.
                                                      NABAIL No. 9665 of 2026
                                2


v. While considering the anticipatory bail of the co-accused Bhola nath
Sharma, this Court had recorded the submissions of the Learned counsel
for the informant/injured that a compromise has been executed between
the parties.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
but could not dispute the fact that a compromise has been executed
between the parties. Learned A.G.A. has stated that non-bailable warrants
have been issued against the applicants and are pending execution. They
are avoiding the proceedings of the investigation and may not be
considered for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties.

6. This application had been filed on behalf of the three applicants. The
name of Usha Devi has been deleted from the array of parties and this
application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Nos.1 and 2 only.

7. The compromise, that has been executed between the parties, has not
been denied. Even while granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused
Bhola Nath Sharma, this Court had taken note of the compromise. The
issuance of non-bailable warrants against the applicants has been
satisfactorily explained. As similarly situated co-accused has been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court, I deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory
bail to the applicants also.

8. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicants – Maneendra Nath and
Amarendra Nath, involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be
released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond and
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer
of the police station/Court concerned, with the following conditions:-

i. The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

ii. The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 9665 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    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. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court;

                                    iv. The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

                                    10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
                                    shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

                                    11. 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.



                                                                                     (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    September 17, 2026
                                    Kushal




Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad