1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.238 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi.

4. Allegation in the FIR is that the applicant and co-accused brutally assaulted the injured with iron rod. Injured received grievous injuries. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant was admitted in hospital. Thereafter, he was discharged from hospital but due to some internal problem, he again admitted in the hospital and on failure of kidney, he died. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that doctor in his statement has specifically stated that the applicant was died due to internal problem not for injury received by him, as alleged in the FIR. Applicant has one case of criminal history, which has been explained in the affidavit of anticipatory bail application. Investigation is going on. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that from perusal of FIR, it is apparent that the applicant with coaccused assaulted the deceased and as far as medical report and postmortem report are concerned, injured has received injuries. Injured has also received head injury, which is grievous in nature. It is not a case of false implication. Prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

6. The object of Section 482 B.N.S is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains.

7. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

8. Considered the arguments of both the parties. From the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the FIR and injured has received grievous injuries. No interference is warranted. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicantSuraj Yadav, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected.