JUDGMENT : Manish Mathur, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 and Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 whose power along with counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.261 of 2022, under Section 308, 325, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Phoolbehad, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 4. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 07.06.2022 at about 10.00 a.m. when applicant allegedly attacked father of informant inflicting serious injuries upon him 5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him and that allegation of applicant attacking the injured on his head is clearly not made out from injury report which does not corroborate the same. It is submitted that even otherwise subsequent to aforesaid alleged incident, the parties are living peacefully together. It is submitted that applicant does not have previous criminal history. 6. Learned counsel for complainant on the basis of instructions does not deny aforesaid facts that the parties are now living peacefully together. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail but does not dispute the aspect that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although allegations have been levelled with regard to applicant causing head injury, the same does not appear to be borne out from medical report. The complainant also does not have any objection to the application. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 , it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS. 9. The complainant also does not have any objection to the application. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 , it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS. 9. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Jai Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on his/her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. 10. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. 11. The application stands disposed of.