Mailu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko

1. Heard Shri Rudra Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Shri Vijai Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the respondent-State, and gone through the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge, N.I.A/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No.6584 of 2025, arising out of F.I.R. No.088 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3) and 352 B.N.S. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act lodged at Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur, by means of which, the anticipatory bail application moved by the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to some quarrel, which had taken place in between the parties, on account of which, the F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of appellant. It is also submitted that in the said incident, both the sides have suffered injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that though a CCTV footage of the incident has been found, but the appellant has not been recognized in the said CCTV footage. It is next submitted that no particle of exploded bomb has been found from the site. Neither the appellant has been arrested till today nor he has misused the liberty granted by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that without considering all these facts, the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Special Judge, NIA, Lucknow by means of the impugned order. It is lastly submitted that the appellant, who has no criminal history, is entitled for protection of this Court under the provisions of anticipatory bail and the present appeal may be allowed. 2 CRLA No. 2853 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-8, which is an order dated 05.08.2005 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1636 of 2025, granting anticipatory bail to co-accused- Aprajit Shukla, which reads as under: "1. Heard Shri Rudra Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 03.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, NIA/ Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 2644 of 2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 88 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur, by means of which, the second anticipatory bail application was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 1st application for anticipatory bail filed before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar was disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2025 by observing that the jurisdiction of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 is with the Special Judge, NIA, Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to some quarrel, which had taken place in between the parties, on account of which, the F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of appellant. It is also submitted that in the said incident, both the sides have suffered injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that though a CCTV footage of the incident has been found, but the appellant has not been recognized in the said CCTV footage. It is next submitted that no particle of exploded bomb has been found from the site. Neither the appellant has been arrested till today nor he has misused the liberty granted by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that without considering all these facts, the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Special Judge, NIA, Lucknow by means of the impugned order. It is lastly submitted that the appellant, who has no criminal history, is entitled for protection of this Court under the provisions of anticipatory bail and the present appeal may be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, though opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, but could not contradict the aforesaid submissions.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as the fact that there are cross cases, in which, both the sides have suffered injuries and there is no criminal history of the appellant, we are of the view that a case for anticipatory bail is made out and the impugned order dated 03.05.2025, which has been passed without considering the 3 CRLA No. 2853 of 2025 aforesaid facts, is liable to be set aside.

7. Impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, NIA/ Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 2644 of 2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 88 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur is hereby set aside.

8. The appeal stands allowed.

9. In the event of arrest of the appellant, namely, Aprajit Shukla in the aforesaid case, he shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-, with the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) 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) The accused-appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

10. However, it is directed that the appellant will join and participate in each and every aspect of Investigation and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency, even with regard to 'discovery of fact' if and when required so by the Investigating Agency."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that three other co-accused persons, namely, Aman Singh, Arpit Singh and Yogendra Kaul have also been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1622/2025, 1628/2025 and 1511/2025 and their orders have been placed by learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that since the allegations against the present appellant are similar to the aforesaid co-accused persons, who have already been granted anticipatory bail, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail on the basis of principle of parity, setting-aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, N.I.A/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No.6584 of 2025.

7. Learned A.G.A., appearing for the respondent-State, has, however, opposed the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the appellant but he could not dispute the fact that the above-named co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by 4 CRLA No. 2853 of 2025 this Court, setting aside the orders impugned.

8. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the respondent-State and gone through the record as well as the fact that there are cross cases in which both the sides have suffered injuries and four co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail, we are of the view that the present appellant is also entitled for anticipatory bail.

9. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, N.I.A/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow Anticipatory Bail Application No.6584 of 2025, arising out of F.I.R. No.088 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3) and 352 B.N.S. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act lodged at Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur, is hereby set aside.

10. In the event of arrest of the appellant, namely, Naveen Singh @ Mailu in the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-, with the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) 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) The accused-appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

11. However, it is directed that the appellant will join and participate in each and every aspect of Investigation and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency, even with regard to 'discovery of fact' if and when required so by the Investigating Agency. . October 15, 2025 MVS/- (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Rudra Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Shri Vijai Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the respondent-State, and gone through the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge, N.I.A/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No.6584 of 2025, arising out of F.I.R. No.088 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3) and 352 B.N.S. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act lodged at Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur, by means of which, the anticipatory bail application moved by the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to some quarrel, which had taken place in between the parties, on account of which, the F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of appellant. It is also submitted that in the said incident, both the sides have suffered injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that though a CCTV footage of the incident has been found, but the appellant has not been recognized in the said CCTV footage. It is next submitted that no particle of exploded bomb has been found from the site. Neither the appellant has been arrested till today nor he has misused the liberty granted by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that without considering all these facts, the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Special Judge, NIA, Lucknow by means of the impugned order. It is lastly submitted that the appellant, who has no criminal history, is entitled for protection of this Court under the provisions of anticipatory bail and the present appeal may be allowed. 2 CRLA No. 2853 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-8, which is an order dated 05.08.2005 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1636 of 2025, granting anticipatory bail to co-accused- Aprajit Shukla, which reads as under: "1. Heard Shri Rudra Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 03.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, NIA/ Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 2644 of 2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 88 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur, by means of which, the second anticipatory bail application was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 1st application for anticipatory bail filed before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar was disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2025 by observing that the jurisdiction of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 is with the Special Judge, NIA, Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to some quarrel, which had taken place in between the parties, on account of which, the F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of appellant. It is also submitted that in the said incident, both the sides have suffered injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that though a CCTV footage of the incident has been found, but the appellant has not been recognized in the said CCTV footage. It is next submitted that no particle of exploded bomb has been found from the site. Neither the appellant has been arrested till today nor he has misused the liberty granted by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that without considering all these facts, the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Special Judge, NIA, Lucknow by means of the impugned order. It is lastly submitted that the appellant, who has no criminal history, is entitled for protection of this Court under the provisions of anticipatory bail and the present appeal may be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, though opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, but could not contradict the aforesaid submissions.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as the fact that there are cross cases, in which, both the sides have suffered injuries and there is no criminal history of the appellant, we are of the view that a case for anticipatory bail is made out and the impugned order dated 03.05.2025, which has been passed without considering the 3 CRLA No. 2853 of 2025 aforesaid facts, is liable to be set aside.

7. Impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, NIA/ Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 2644 of 2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 88 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur is hereby set aside.

8. The appeal stands allowed.

9. In the event of arrest of the appellant, namely, Aprajit Shukla in the aforesaid case, he shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-, with the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) 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) The accused-appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

10. However, it is directed that the appellant will join and participate in each and every aspect of Investigation and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency, even with regard to 'discovery of fact' if and when required so by the Investigating Agency."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that three other co-accused persons, namely, Aman Singh, Arpit Singh and Yogendra Kaul have also been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1622/2025, 1628/2025 and 1511/2025 and their orders have been placed by learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that since the allegations against the present appellant are similar to the aforesaid co-accused persons, who have already been granted anticipatory bail, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail on the basis of principle of parity, setting-aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, N.I.A/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No.6584 of 2025.

7. Learned A.G.A., appearing for the respondent-State, has, however, opposed the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the appellant but he could not dispute the fact that the above-named co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by 4 CRLA No. 2853 of 2025 this Court, setting aside the orders impugned.

8. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the respondent-State and gone through the record as well as the fact that there are cross cases in which both the sides have suffered injuries and four co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail, we are of the view that the present appellant is also entitled for anticipatory bail.

9. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, N.I.A/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow Anticipatory Bail Application No.6584 of 2025, arising out of F.I.R. No.088 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3) and 352 B.N.S. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act lodged at Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur, is hereby set aside.

10. In the event of arrest of the appellant, namely, Naveen Singh @ Mailu in the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-, with the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) 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) The accused-appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

11. However, it is directed that the appellant will join and participate in each and every aspect of Investigation and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency, even with regard to 'discovery of fact' if and when required so by the Investigating Agency. . October 15, 2025 MVS/- (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench