Chhavinath v. Santosh Kumar others) for restraining the father of the

1. Heard counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 765 of 2024, under Sections 75(1), 333, 110, 115(2) BNS, Police Station Roza, District Shahjahanpur.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Earlier, the husband of the informant instituted a civil suit in the court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Shahjahanpur registered as Original Suit No. 67 of 2020 (Chhavinath Vs. Santosh Kumar & others) for restraining the father of the applicant-Santosh and his bothers Shivam and Satyam from interfering in the land in dispute. In the said suit, 6-C application for interim injunction was rejected on 15.05.2024. In order to harass the applicant, the instant prosecution has been instituted. It is next contended that the applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. The injuries sustained by the informant were found simple in nature. The nature of injuries shows that there was no intent to murder. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant had co-operated in the investigation. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 2 NABAIL No. 7271 of 2025 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the categories being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinarily the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

7. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

8. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory 3 NABAIL No. 7271 of 2025 bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

9. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

10. Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact that a civil suit is pending between the parties before the court concerned; the injuries sustained by the informant were found simple in nature; investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been submitted, the applicant had co- operated in the investigation, no custodial interrogation is required, and the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

11. In the event of arrest, the applicant Sundram involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; 4 NABAIL No. 7271 of 2025 (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

12. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

13. The application stands disposed of. September 8, 2025 Lbm/- (Vivek Varma,J.) LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 765 of 2024, under Sections 75(1), 333, 110, 115(2) BNS, Police Station Roza, District Shahjahanpur.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Earlier, the husband of the informant instituted a civil suit in the court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Shahjahanpur registered as Original Suit No. 67 of 2020 (Chhavinath Vs. Santosh Kumar & others) for restraining the father of the applicant-Santosh and his bothers Shivam and Satyam from interfering in the land in dispute. In the said suit, 6-C application for interim injunction was rejected on 15.05.2024. In order to harass the applicant, the instant prosecution has been instituted. It is next contended that the applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. The injuries sustained by the informant were found simple in nature. The nature of injuries shows that there was no intent to murder. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant had co-operated in the investigation. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 2 NABAIL No. 7271 of 2025 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the categories being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinarily the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

7. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

8. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory 3 NABAIL No. 7271 of 2025 bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

9. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

10. Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact that a civil suit is pending between the parties before the court concerned; the injuries sustained by the informant were found simple in nature; investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been submitted, the applicant had co- operated in the investigation, no custodial interrogation is required, and the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

11. In the event of arrest, the applicant Sundram involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; 4 NABAIL No. 7271 of 2025 (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

12. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

13. The application stands disposed of. September 8, 2025 Lbm/- (Vivek Varma,J.) LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad