✦ High Court of India · 16 Sep 2025

Deshraj Verma vs The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home

Case Details High Court of India · 16 Sep 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
16 Sep 2025
Bench
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Length
1,068 words

1. Heard Sri Atul Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on

12.05.2025: "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party. Learned counsel for applicant is granted liberty to implead the informant as opposite party No. and to renumber the opposite parties during course of day. Issue notice to newly impleaded as opposite party No.2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 324 of 2025, under Section 109(1), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri. As per contents of F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place on 15th April, 2025 between

6.40 and 7.00 P.M. when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked and inflicted injuries upon the informant and his family member. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that the statement of injured has clearly nominated co-accused Sanjay Gupta as a person who reportedly fired upon them resulting in 2 NABAIL No. 441 of 2025 injuries. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the injury reports of both the injured to submit that injures suffered are simple in nature and therefore the provisions of Section 109(1) BNS would not be applicable. It is submitted that the investigation is still ongoing and applicant undertakes to cooperate with the same. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that injury report and statements of injured clearly corroborate allegations levelled against the applicant and co-accused. It is also submitted that on the basis of instructions that applicant is not cooperating in the investigation. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that main gist of allegation of having opened fire has been attributed to co-accused Sanjay Gupta who has already been granted bail by trial court. At this stage, there does not appear to be any allegation against the applicant to corresponding to Section 109(1) BNS. The applicant undertakes to corroborate in the investigation. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail. Let the accused-applicant Deshraj Verma as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. The applicant is directed to appear before the Investigation Officer on 16th May, 2025 at 2.00 P.M. List this case on 13th June, 2025 as fresh alongwith service report. Objections may be filed in the meantime. Learned A.G.A. shall obtain instructions by the next date of listing with regard to cooperation of 3 NABAIL No. 441 of 2025 applicant in the investigation."

3. The State has filed a counter affidavit on 21.07.2025 and it has been stated in para 44 of the counter affidavit that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and an extract of the case diary has been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure No.CA-10 in support of this contention.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this extract relates to the entry made in the case diary on 24.04.2025, whereas the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail on 12.05.2025 and it was provided in the order dated 12.05.2025 that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 16.05.2025 at 2.00 p.m.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has not violated the aforesaid order passed by this court. He has further submitted that the co-accused Sanjay Gupta against whom the allegation of firing was levelled has been granted bail by means of an order dated 30.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Lakhimpur Kheri.

6. In these circumstances, when the co-accused against whom the allegation of firing has been levelled has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court; although the counter affidavit alleges the non-cooperation with investigation, this allegation is levelled on the basis of an entry in the case diary made on 23.04.2025, whereas thereafter this court had specifically provided that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 16.05.2025 and the learned A.G.A.-I has not alleged that the applicant has not appeared before the Investigating Officer in compliance of the order passed by this court, there is no ground which may persuade this court to take a view different from the one different from taken by the coordinate Bench.

7. In view of above, the interim order dated 12.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 16, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Atul Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on

12.05.2025: "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party. Learned counsel for applicant is granted liberty to implead the informant as opposite party No. and to renumber the opposite parties during course of day. Issue notice to newly impleaded as opposite party No.2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 324 of 2025, under Section 109(1), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri. As per contents of F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place on 15th April, 2025 between

6.40 and 7.00 P.M. when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked and inflicted injuries upon the informant and his family member. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that the statement of injured has clearly nominated co-accused Sanjay Gupta as a person who reportedly fired upon them resulting in 2 NABAIL No. 441 of 2025 injuries. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the injury reports of both the injured to submit that injures suffered are simple in nature and therefore the provisions of Section 109(1) BNS would not be applicable. It is submitted that the investigation is still ongoing and applicant undertakes to cooperate with the same. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that injury report and statements of injured clearly corroborate allegations levelled against the applicant and co-accused. It is also submitted that on the basis of instructions that applicant is not cooperating in the investigation. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that main gist of allegation of having opened fire has been attributed to co-accused Sanjay Gupta who has already been granted bail by trial court. At this stage, there does not appear to be any allegation against the applicant to corresponding to Section 109(1) BNS. The applicant undertakes to corroborate in the investigation. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail. Let the accused-applicant Deshraj Verma as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. The applicant is directed to appear before the Investigation Officer on 16th May, 2025 at 2.00 P.M. List this case on 13th June, 2025 as fresh alongwith service report. Objections may be filed in the meantime. Learned A.G.A. shall obtain instructions by the next date of listing with regard to cooperation of 3 NABAIL No. 441 of 2025 applicant in the investigation."

3. The State has filed a counter affidavit on 21.07.2025 and it has been stated in para 44 of the counter affidavit that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and an extract of the case diary has been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure No.CA-10 in support of this contention.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this extract relates to the entry made in the case diary on 24.04.2025, whereas the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail on 12.05.2025 and it was provided in the order dated 12.05.2025 that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 16.05.2025 at 2.00 p.m.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has not violated the aforesaid order passed by this court. He has further submitted that the co-accused Sanjay Gupta against whom the allegation of firing was levelled has been granted bail by means of an order dated 30.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Lakhimpur Kheri.

6. In these circumstances, when the co-accused against whom the allegation of firing has been levelled has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court; although the counter affidavit alleges the non-cooperation with investigation, this allegation is levelled on the basis of an entry in the case diary made on 23.04.2025, whereas thereafter this court had specifically provided that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 16.05.2025 and the learned A.G.A.-I has not alleged that the applicant has not appeared before the Investigating Officer in compliance of the order passed by this court, there is no ground which may persuade this court to take a view different from the one different from taken by the coordinate Bench.

7. In view of above, the interim order dated 12.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 16, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments