MOHD AHTESHAM TOMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

(2.) This application under Sec. 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2023, under Ss. 308, 147, 148, 452, 352, 323, 341, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut.

(3.) Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were not named in the first information report. As per the allegations in the first information report the named co-accused are alleged to have assaulted the informant-injured. The name of the applicants were subsequently disclosed in the statement of the injured under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. As per the medical report and the statement of the doctor, the injuries sustained by the injured were found simple in nature. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicants. During the pendency of the investigation, the applicants were granted benefit of Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. The investigation has been completed. Counsel for the applicants 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 SCC 773, the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. He further submitted that similar co-accused, namely Ramzani and three have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dtd. 10/4/2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 1314 of 2025. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.