State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. vs Party(s)

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 23.04.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1. 1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for applicant is granted liberty to implead informant as opposite party no.2 and to renumber the opposite parties during the course of day.

3. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

4. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.151 of 2020 under Section 323, 325, 427, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Kurwar, District Sultanpur.

5. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken 2 ABAIL No. 414 of 2025 place on 15.04.2020 at about 11.30 a.m. when applicant along with co- accused is said to have attacked and inflicted injuries upon informant and his brother.

6. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from fact that as per averments made in F.I.R. and statement of informant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the role of applicant is of attacking the injured with an axe. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to injury report to indicate that injury reports of neither of the two injured indicate any injury caused by axe. It is submitted that previous criminal history of one case has already been explained in supplementary affidavit filed today.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail with submission that F.I.R. as well as statement of injured clearly indicate role of applicant in causing injuries. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of of one case has been explained

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 role of attacking the injured has been cast upon applicant with an axe, the injury reports do not indicate any injury caused by an axe. Previous criminal history of one case has been explained. 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. List this case on 16.05.2025, as fresh, along with service report.

10. Objections may be filed in the meantime.

11. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, applicant Zargam Ali @ Zargam Ali Khan shall be released on interim 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 3 ABAIL No. 414 of 2025 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"

3. The complainant has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of an order dated 20.01.2021 passed by ta Coordinate Bench of this Court in Application 482 Cr.P.C No. 3064 of 2020, whereby the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed challenging the validity of the charge-sheet was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the applicant had filed a revision against summoning order, which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Sultanpur.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the aforesaid facts have been concealed by the applicant and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

5. The Sate has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of charge- sheet dated 01.06.2020.

6. The considerations for deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail are all together different from the considerations which way before this Court while examining the validity of the charge-sheet 4 ABAIL No. 414 of 2025 and the summoning order. Therefore, the dismissal of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the validity of the charge-sheet as not pressed and the dismissal of the revision filed against the summoning order, would not affect the considerations of the application for the anticipatory bail on its merits.

7. There is no allegation of any misuse of the conditions of the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by means of the aforesaid order dated 23.04.2025.

8. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 23.04.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. In view of above, the interim order dated 23.04.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Preeti (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 23.04.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1. 1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for applicant is granted liberty to implead informant as opposite party no.2 and to renumber the opposite parties during the course of day.

3. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

4. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.151 of 2020 under Section 323, 325, 427, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Kurwar, District Sultanpur.

5. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken 2 ABAIL No. 414 of 2025 place on 15.04.2020 at about 11.30 a.m. when applicant along with co- accused is said to have attacked and inflicted injuries upon informant and his brother.

6. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from fact that as per averments made in F.I.R. and statement of informant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the role of applicant is of attacking the injured with an axe. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to injury report to indicate that injury reports of neither of the two injured indicate any injury caused by axe. It is submitted that previous criminal history of one case has already been explained in supplementary affidavit filed today.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail with submission that F.I.R. as well as statement of injured clearly indicate role of applicant in causing injuries. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of of one case has been explained

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 role of attacking the injured has been cast upon applicant with an axe, the injury reports do not indicate any injury caused by an axe. Previous criminal history of one case has been explained. 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. List this case on 16.05.2025, as fresh, along with service report.

10. Objections may be filed in the meantime.

11. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, applicant Zargam Ali @ Zargam Ali Khan shall be released on interim 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 3 ABAIL No. 414 of 2025 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"

3. The complainant has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of an order dated 20.01.2021 passed by ta Coordinate Bench of this Court in Application 482 Cr.P.C No. 3064 of 2020, whereby the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed challenging the validity of the charge-sheet was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the applicant had filed a revision against summoning order, which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Sultanpur.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the aforesaid facts have been concealed by the applicant and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

5. The Sate has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of charge- sheet dated 01.06.2020.

6. The considerations for deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail are all together different from the considerations which way before this Court while examining the validity of the charge-sheet 4 ABAIL No. 414 of 2025 and the summoning order. Therefore, the dismissal of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the validity of the charge-sheet as not pressed and the dismissal of the revision filed against the summoning order, would not affect the considerations of the application for the anticipatory bail on its merits.

7. There is no allegation of any misuse of the conditions of the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by means of the aforesaid order dated 23.04.2025.

8. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 23.04.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. In view of above, the interim order dated 23.04.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Preeti (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench