Judgment

#1. Heard Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

#2. It is contended by learned AGA that instruction is not being received so far and seeks time.

#3. The learned counsel for applicants seeks interim anticipatory bail.

#4. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.64 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 131, 109(1), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Mant, District- Mathura.

#5. It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicants that the F.I.R. is lodged by the Pradhan of the village. The allegation in the F.I.R. is such that the accused-applicants along with other co-accused were reaping the crop in the field of gram samaj land. The Pradhan came to know about the harvesting of the crop. He came there to the spot, on which the accused- applicants and other co-accused with common object had started indiscriminate firing on informant. It is alleged that six rounds were fired. There is no injury. No bullets and pellets have ever been recovered. The implication of the case is false because of the village politics. The accused-applicants want to cooperate in the investigation, but apprehend arrest, hence, seek interim anticipatory bail.

#6. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three 2 NABAIL No. 4217 of 2026 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 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.

#7. This Court considering the arguments, 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 interim bail.

#8. The applicants- Rakesh and Sonu Baghel involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till the next date fixed on his 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicants 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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. 3 NABAIL No. 4217 of 2026 (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. (v) The applicants shall ensure their presence before the Investigating Officer in view of interim anticipatory bail granted.

#9. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

#10. List this case on 21.07.2026.

#11. Learned AGA is directed to obtain instructions by the next date. May 1, 2026 Shivangi (Avnish Saxena,J.)