Ram Sewak Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Saurabh Pathak, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. On 10.07.2025 this Court protected the interest of the appellant in the instant appeal which has been filed seeking anticipatory bail. The order dated

10.07.2025 reads as under:- "Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the accused-appellant/Ram Sewak Shukla and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record. The instant appeal has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "WHEREFORE it is prayed that the order dated the order dated 30.5.2025, rejecting the Second Anticipatory Bail Application No.3794/2025 of the appellant, by the Learned Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Crime No. 42/2024, U/s 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act, PS- Kaisarbagh, District - Lucknow be set aside and the appellant be granted anticipatory bail in Crime No. 42/2024, U/s 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act, PS-Kaisarbagh, District - Lucknow. FURTHERMORE it is prayed that the appellant be granted interim anticipatory bail in Crime No. 42/2024, U/s 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act, PS- Kaisarbagh, District - Lucknow, during the pendency of the present criminal appeal in this Hon'ble Court." Considered the case of the prosecution, as per which, an amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) was provided to the accused-appellant by informant/opposite party No. 2/Govind Kanaujia for the purposes of providing a job to one 2 CRLA No. 2091 of 2025 Raja Rawat in Jal Nigam, Lucknow on contract basis, however, when the said job on contract basis could not be provided, the amount so paid was demanded by the informant. On 18.03.2024, the informant went to the Office of accused-appellant for recovery of the amount so paid i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh). The informant was with one Vinay Mishra, Advocate, who provided his phone number i.e. Mobile Phone Number 7518108529 to one Izhar Ali, who said to have acquainted with the appellant, and after half an hour the accused-appellant made a phone call through his mobile phone Number i.e. 9450953355 on the mobile phone of Sri Vinay Mishra, Advocate i.e. mobile number 7518108529 and hurled filthy abuses and also made casteist remarks. In the aforesaid brief facts of the case, an FIR No. 0042/2024 of the incident was lodged by the informant on 18.03.2024 at Police Station- Kaiserbagh, District- Lucknow Central (Commissionerate Lucknow) making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections- 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, which is the basis of pending criminal proceedings. It is stated that the offences as indicated under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act would not be attracted in the instant case in view of the various pronouncements on the issue, as if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken on its face value even then the same were not in public view. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttrakhand and Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 668. It is further stated that the accused-appellant is a senior citizen aged about 75 years and investigation in the matter has already been completed and charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, though, in fact, the offence as indicated under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act is not made out against the accused-appellant. It is also stated that in fact the story of the prosecution is completely bogus rather false as, according to the allegations levelled in the FIR, the accused-appellant made a call by his phone number to the phone number of Vinay Mishra, Advocate, however, during investigation based upon the Call Detail Report (CDR), the Investigating Officer (IO) opined that no call was made by the accused-appellant on the phone number of Vinay Mishra, Advocate, who was present with the informant. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds that the accused-appellant is entitled to interim protection. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-appellant- Ram Sewak Shukla be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime, as indicated in prayer clause, quoted above, on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by police 3 CRLA No. 2091 of 2025 authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) That the accused-appellant 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; and (iii) That the accused-appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Issue notice to the opposite party No.2, returnable at an early date. Steps in this regard be taken within seven working days. List this case on 28.07.2025, as fresh. Let opposite party No.2 be also informed by the SHO concerned regarding the date fixed in the case." As nothing adverse has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the side opposite as also by the learned AGA. Therefore the interim protection granted by this Court is hereby made absolute. In view of above, the appeal is disposed of. November 21, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Saurabh Pathak, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. On 10.07.2025 this Court protected the interest of the appellant in the instant appeal which has been filed seeking anticipatory bail. The order dated

10.07.2025 reads as under:- "Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the accused-appellant/Ram Sewak Shukla and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record. The instant appeal has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "WHEREFORE it is prayed that the order dated the order dated 30.5.2025, rejecting the Second Anticipatory Bail Application No.3794/2025 of the appellant, by the Learned Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Crime No. 42/2024, U/s 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act, PS- Kaisarbagh, District - Lucknow be set aside and the appellant be granted anticipatory bail in Crime No. 42/2024, U/s 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act, PS-Kaisarbagh, District - Lucknow. FURTHERMORE it is prayed that the appellant be granted interim anticipatory bail in Crime No. 42/2024, U/s 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act, PS- Kaisarbagh, District - Lucknow, during the pendency of the present criminal appeal in this Hon'ble Court." Considered the case of the prosecution, as per which, an amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) was provided to the accused-appellant by informant/opposite party No. 2/Govind Kanaujia for the purposes of providing a job to one 2 CRLA No. 2091 of 2025 Raja Rawat in Jal Nigam, Lucknow on contract basis, however, when the said job on contract basis could not be provided, the amount so paid was demanded by the informant. On 18.03.2024, the informant went to the Office of accused-appellant for recovery of the amount so paid i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh). The informant was with one Vinay Mishra, Advocate, who provided his phone number i.e. Mobile Phone Number 7518108529 to one Izhar Ali, who said to have acquainted with the appellant, and after half an hour the accused-appellant made a phone call through his mobile phone Number i.e. 9450953355 on the mobile phone of Sri Vinay Mishra, Advocate i.e. mobile number 7518108529 and hurled filthy abuses and also made casteist remarks. In the aforesaid brief facts of the case, an FIR No. 0042/2024 of the incident was lodged by the informant on 18.03.2024 at Police Station- Kaiserbagh, District- Lucknow Central (Commissionerate Lucknow) making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections- 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, which is the basis of pending criminal proceedings. It is stated that the offences as indicated under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act would not be attracted in the instant case in view of the various pronouncements on the issue, as if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken on its face value even then the same were not in public view. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttrakhand and Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 668. It is further stated that the accused-appellant is a senior citizen aged about 75 years and investigation in the matter has already been completed and charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, though, in fact, the offence as indicated under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act is not made out against the accused-appellant. It is also stated that in fact the story of the prosecution is completely bogus rather false as, according to the allegations levelled in the FIR, the accused-appellant made a call by his phone number to the phone number of Vinay Mishra, Advocate, however, during investigation based upon the Call Detail Report (CDR), the Investigating Officer (IO) opined that no call was made by the accused-appellant on the phone number of Vinay Mishra, Advocate, who was present with the informant. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds that the accused-appellant is entitled to interim protection. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-appellant- Ram Sewak Shukla be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime, as indicated in prayer clause, quoted above, on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by police 3 CRLA No. 2091 of 2025 authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) That the accused-appellant 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; and (iii) That the accused-appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Issue notice to the opposite party No.2, returnable at an early date. Steps in this regard be taken within seven working days. List this case on 28.07.2025, as fresh. Let opposite party No.2 be also informed by the SHO concerned regarding the date fixed in the case." As nothing adverse has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the side opposite as also by the learned AGA. Therefore the interim protection granted by this Court is hereby made absolute. In view of above, the appeal is disposed of. November 21, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench