State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for
Case Details
3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant Amaan-Ullah Khan got a first information report lodged on 25.02.2025 against Nazim, Israil, Shahjahan (present applicant), Zakir Khan and four other unknown persons stating inter-alia that on 25.02.2025 at about 11:30 a.m., he, his son Hasim and one Mustafa were going to his shop. On their way, accused Nazim drove his Scorpio vehicle in front of them. From the said vehicle, accused Nazim, Israil and four others, armed with hockey and danda, came out and started abusing the complainant and asked him to get down from the car. F.I.R. further alleges that as soon as the complainant along with his son Hasim alighted from the car, Nazim, Israil along with four other accused persons, with an intention to kill, started assaulting them due to which Hasim has received serious injuries and fell unconscious. All the 2 NABAIL No. 7964 of 2025 accused persons fled away in their Scorpio car bearing registration no. UP-82-V-9930. F.I.R. also alleges the complainant immediately took her son to District Hospital, Sant Kabir Nagar where doctor has declared him dead. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In the F.I.R., no specific role of causing injury to Hasim (now deceased) has been attributed to the present applicant. Referring the inquest report, it is pointed out that in the inquest report, no injury was found on the body of the deceased whereas as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, only one external injury was found on his body. Much emphasis has been given by contending that after culmination of investigation, final/closure report was submitted on 30.04.2025 by the investigating officer in favour of the applicant as well as named co- accused Israil and Zakir Khan but before filing of the said final report in the Court, Superintendent of Police, Sant Kabir Nagar vide order dated 16.05.2025 has directed for further investigation in the matter. Thereafter, second statement of the complainant-Amaan-Ullah Khan and eye witness Mustafa was recorded, in which also they have not attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased and the matter is still under investigation, therefore, the applicant who has no criminal history may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with further investigation of this case. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant by contending that at the time of incident, applicant along with other co-accused was also sitting in Scorpio car, therefore, she was also involved in the matter but they could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that as per post- mortem report, only one injury was found on the body of the deceased and no specific role of assault or causing injury has been attributed to the present applicant-Shahjahan. This Court also finds that after culmination of first round of investigation, final/closure report 3 NABAIL No. 7964 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025 has been submitted in favour of the present applicant because the investigating officer was of the view that the complicity of the applicant was found false but on the direction of Superintendent of Police, concerned, an order for further investigation has been made, hence the further investigation is still pending. From the evidence on record, I also find that the case of present applicant- Shahjahan is distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons. 7-Looking to the facts of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of her fleeing from justice, the applicant is entitled to get anticipatory bail in this case. 8-In the event of arrest of the applicant-Shahjahan involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned till the submission of police report, if any, under section 193(3) B.N.S.S. with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or in case it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 9-It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and 4 NABAIL No. 7964 of 2025 will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 10-With the aforesaid directions, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed. October 10, 2025 Saurabh (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant Amaan-Ullah Khan got a first information report lodged on 25.02.2025 against Nazim, Israil, Shahjahan (present applicant), Zakir Khan and four other unknown persons stating inter-alia that on 25.02.2025 at about 11:30 a.m., he, his son Hasim and one Mustafa were going to his shop. On their way, accused Nazim drove his Scorpio vehicle in front of them. From the said vehicle, accused Nazim, Israil and four others, armed with hockey and danda, came out and started abusing the complainant and asked him to get down from the car. F.I.R. further alleges that as soon as the complainant along with his son Hasim alighted from the car, Nazim, Israil along with four other accused persons, with an intention to kill, started assaulting them due to which Hasim has received serious injuries and fell unconscious. All the 2 NABAIL No. 7964 of 2025 accused persons fled away in their Scorpio car bearing registration no. UP-82-V-9930. F.I.R. also alleges the complainant immediately took her son to District Hospital, Sant Kabir Nagar where doctor has declared him dead. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In the F.I.R., no specific role of causing injury to Hasim (now deceased) has been attributed to the present applicant. Referring the inquest report, it is pointed out that in the inquest report, no injury was found on the body of the deceased whereas as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, only one external injury was found on his body. Much emphasis has been given by contending that after culmination of investigation, final/closure report was submitted on 30.04.2025 by the investigating officer in favour of the applicant as well as named co- accused Israil and Zakir Khan but before filing of the said final report in the Court, Superintendent of Police, Sant Kabir Nagar vide order dated 16.05.2025 has directed for further investigation in the matter. Thereafter, second statement of the complainant-Amaan-Ullah Khan and eye witness Mustafa was recorded, in which also they have not attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased and the matter is still under investigation, therefore, the applicant who has no criminal history may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with further investigation of this case. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant by contending that at the time of incident, applicant along with other co-accused was also sitting in Scorpio car, therefore, she was also involved in the matter but they could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that as per post- mortem report, only one injury was found on the body of the deceased and no specific role of assault or causing injury has been attributed to the present applicant-Shahjahan. This Court also finds that after culmination of first round of investigation, final/closure report 3 NABAIL No. 7964 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025 has been submitted in favour of the present applicant because the investigating officer was of the view that the complicity of the applicant was found false but on the direction of Superintendent of Police, concerned, an order for further investigation has been made, hence the further investigation is still pending. From the evidence on record, I also find that the case of present applicant- Shahjahan is distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons. 7-Looking to the facts of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of her fleeing from justice, the applicant is entitled to get anticipatory bail in this case. 8-In the event of arrest of the applicant-Shahjahan involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned till the submission of police report, if any, under section 193(3) B.N.S.S. with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or in case it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 9-It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and 4 NABAIL No. 7964 of 2025 will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 10-With the aforesaid directions, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed. October 10, 2025 Saurabh (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad