State of U.P. and Another vs Party(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Singh learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present second anticipatory application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Jeet Lal, Shyam Lal, Bhafwandas, Anil Kumar @ Kashi, Ramkumar @ Mulayam, Mauji Lal, Smt. Heerawati Devi, Smt. Gulab Devi, Smt. Chanau Devi, Smt. Rajkumari, Smt. Susheela Devi, Smt. Savita Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0320 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 506, 332, 353, 336, 427 I.P.C., and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Saraymamrej, District Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrests, applicants may be released on bail.

3. The first criminal misc. anticipatory bail application no. 18132 of 2021 (Jeet Lal and 13 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) has been dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2025.

4. There is an allegation against the applicants are that they are in illegal possession over a vacant land and have encroached upon it, earlier a case was registered against them on 11.08.2020 which is crime no.274 of 2020. On 02.09.2020 Tehsildar- Handia and other Revenue Officials with the aid of police force went to 2 NABAIL No. 8061 of 2025 remove the encroachment, the applicants and other with common intention assaulted upon them with bricks, stones and lathi-danda and also threatened to kill them. In the said incident, the some administrative officials and police officials have also sustained injuries and the government vehicle and motor-cycles have also damaged. The accused applicants have interfered in the discharge of official duties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants are named in the FIR and apprehend arrest. They belongs to Scheduled Caste category and weaker section of the society, who are residing over Araji No.325 since last more than ten decades and have also planted trees over the same. Four of the family members of the 14 applicants have lease deed in their favour. The dispute regarding the entries of revenue records are still pending but under the influence of localities and muscle men, who in collusion with the Administrative Officer got a proposal issued for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan. Learned counsel further argued that earlier an FIR was lodged against the accused-applicants which was challenged before this Court in which Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act was also invoked, considering the submissions of counsel, the Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to grant protection to the accused persons. When the fact of filing of the writ petition came to the knowledge, the complainants came upon the land in dispute and with the aid of police force badly beaten the applicants and forcibly demolished their houses and huts, misbehaved with ladies and also looted the valuables. As earlier an FIR was lodged under Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, there was no occasion to went back to the land in dispute but they are adamant to get the land vacated in any manner with the collusion of Administrative Authorities. The entire story is fabricated and concocted. Learned counsel also argued that the applicants were earlier filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. No. 18132 of 2021 (Jeet Lal and 13 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2021 had granted interim protection to the effect that no coercive measures should be adopted against the applicants till the next date of listing. Learned counsel further argued that the interim order was continuing but in the meantime, the case was listed on 01.09.2025 and the same has been dismissed for want of 3 NABAIL No. 8061 of 2025 prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Learned counsel further argued that civil dispute has been dragged into criminal prosecution of the applicants at the behest of the opposite party/informant, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Learned further argued that there is no credible evidence against them. It has also been submitted that applicants undertakes to co-operate during the trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. further argued that credible evidence has been collected during the investigation, which has culminated in submission of charge sheet.

7. Perusal of the record shows that specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants in commission of offence. The investigating officer, during the course of investigation found the complicity of the applicants in commission of offence is supported by oral as well as documentary evidence and after collecting credible evidence against the applicants submitted charge sheet Further more, the accused-applicants were earlier granted interim protection on 29.10.2021 but after grant of interim protection, the applicants did not care to appear before the trial Court and vide order dated 07.06.2024 bailable warrants were also issued against the applicants, as is evident from the perusal of the order sheets of the case, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-18 to the affidavit accompanying the application. Moreover, in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel 4 NABAIL No. 8061 of 2025 for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) October 14, 2025 S.Ali SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Singh learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present second anticipatory application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Jeet Lal, Shyam Lal, Bhafwandas, Anil Kumar @ Kashi, Ramkumar @ Mulayam, Mauji Lal, Smt. Heerawati Devi, Smt. Gulab Devi, Smt. Chanau Devi, Smt. Rajkumari, Smt. Susheela Devi, Smt. Savita Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0320 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 506, 332, 353, 336, 427 I.P.C., and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Saraymamrej, District Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrests, applicants may be released on bail.

3. The first criminal misc. anticipatory bail application no. 18132 of 2021 (Jeet Lal and 13 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) has been dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2025.

4. There is an allegation against the applicants are that they are in illegal possession over a vacant land and have encroached upon it, earlier a case was registered against them on 11.08.2020 which is crime no.274 of 2020. On 02.09.2020 Tehsildar- Handia and other Revenue Officials with the aid of police force went to 2 NABAIL No. 8061 of 2025 remove the encroachment, the applicants and other with common intention assaulted upon them with bricks, stones and lathi-danda and also threatened to kill them. In the said incident, the some administrative officials and police officials have also sustained injuries and the government vehicle and motor-cycles have also damaged. The accused applicants have interfered in the discharge of official duties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants are named in the FIR and apprehend arrest. They belongs to Scheduled Caste category and weaker section of the society, who are residing over Araji No.325 since last more than ten decades and have also planted trees over the same. Four of the family members of the 14 applicants have lease deed in their favour. The dispute regarding the entries of revenue records are still pending but under the influence of localities and muscle men, who in collusion with the Administrative Officer got a proposal issued for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan. Learned counsel further argued that earlier an FIR was lodged against the accused-applicants which was challenged before this Court in which Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act was also invoked, considering the submissions of counsel, the Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to grant protection to the accused persons. When the fact of filing of the writ petition came to the knowledge, the complainants came upon the land in dispute and with the aid of police force badly beaten the applicants and forcibly demolished their houses and huts, misbehaved with ladies and also looted the valuables. As earlier an FIR was lodged under Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, there was no occasion to went back to the land in dispute but they are adamant to get the land vacated in any manner with the collusion of Administrative Authorities. The entire story is fabricated and concocted. Learned counsel also argued that the applicants were earlier filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. No. 18132 of 2021 (Jeet Lal and 13 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2021 had granted interim protection to the effect that no coercive measures should be adopted against the applicants till the next date of listing. Learned counsel further argued that the interim order was continuing but in the meantime, the case was listed on 01.09.2025 and the same has been dismissed for want of 3 NABAIL No. 8061 of 2025 prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Learned counsel further argued that civil dispute has been dragged into criminal prosecution of the applicants at the behest of the opposite party/informant, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Learned further argued that there is no credible evidence against them. It has also been submitted that applicants undertakes to co-operate during the trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. further argued that credible evidence has been collected during the investigation, which has culminated in submission of charge sheet.

7. Perusal of the record shows that specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants in commission of offence. The investigating officer, during the course of investigation found the complicity of the applicants in commission of offence is supported by oral as well as documentary evidence and after collecting credible evidence against the applicants submitted charge sheet Further more, the accused-applicants were earlier granted interim protection on 29.10.2021 but after grant of interim protection, the applicants did not care to appear before the trial Court and vide order dated 07.06.2024 bailable warrants were also issued against the applicants, as is evident from the perusal of the order sheets of the case, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-18 to the affidavit accompanying the application. Moreover, in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel 4 NABAIL No. 8061 of 2025 for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) October 14, 2025 S.Ali SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad