Jagat Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil

"1. Heard Shri Dev Mani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Vipul Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondent(s) and perused the material available on record.

2. This Court had passed the order dated 13.10.2025, which reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Dev Mani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities concern to conduct the fare and unbiased investigation in F.I.R. dated 13.10.2024, F.I.R. No.0537 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(3) & 324(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Sushant Golf City, District-Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition."

3. This writ petition was filed on 24.09.2025, but till date, learned Additional Government Advocate could not receive instructions from the opposite party No.3 i.e the Station House Officer, Police Station-Sushant Golf City, District- Lucknow, therefore, she is unable to assist the Court.

4. List/ put up this case on 16.10.2025 as fresh.

5. On that date, the opposite party No.3 i.e. the Station House Officer, Police Station-Sushant Golf City, District-Lucknow shall appear in person before the Court along with the case diary to assist the Court.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate shall intimate this Court to the Station House Officer concerned forthwith." 2 CRLP No. 9484 of 2025

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Shri Upendra Singh, Incharge Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station Sushant Golf City, Lucknow is present before this Court in person.

4. The aforesaid officer has filed a personal affidavit, which is taken on record.

5. Shri Vipul Singh, learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.13 of the personal affidavit, wherein it has been indicated that against accused Ansh Yadav, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 115(2), 109, 352, 351(3) and 324(4) of B.N.S., and against accused Vanshika Yadav, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 324(4) of B.N.S.

6. Further attention has been drawn towards paragraph no.12 of the personal affidavit, wherein it has been indicated that during course of the investigation nothing incriminating has been found against accused Vishal Singh S/o Niranjan Prasad Singh, therefore, 'final report' has been filed in favour of him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown a copy of the order dated 19.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 240 of 2024 (Vanshika Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order of the same date passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 246 of 2024 (Vishal Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) to demonstrate that when the aforesaid co-accused persons have their anticipatory bail applications, such anticipatory bail applications was strongly opposed by the investigating officer apprising the Court that all accused persons have committed offence and the injured persons have received serious injuries, therefore, if those persons granted anticipatory bail it may impact over the society at large. Considering the overall strong objection of the investigating officer concerned, this Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of both the accused persons. Both the aforesaid orders are taken on record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that if at the time of opposing anticipatory bail application, the fact brought into the notice of the Court that all accused persons have committed serious offence then he is unable to understand as to how and why against one accused person the offence has been converted in a lesser sections and against one accused person 'final report' has been filed.

9. He has further submitted that either at the time of opposing the anticipatory bail application wrong facts have been informed to the Court or there are some extraneous reasons or consideration diluting the case of co-accused persons.

10. Be that as it may, without making any observation on the aforesaid stand of the Inspector Incharge of the police station concerned, we find it appropriate that a personal affidavit be filed by him explaining the aforesaid anxiety of the Court, in as much as the aforesaid facts and circumstances need proper explanation.

11. List this case on 30th October, 2025, on that date, the officer who is present today in person, shall again appear in person along with his personal affidavit. 3 CRLP No. 9484 of 2025

12. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit to the personal affidavit, which has been filed today."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Shri Pradeep Yadav, Additional Inspector In-charge, Police Station Sushant Golf City, Lucknow has filed his personal affidavit, the same is taken on record.

4. Said Shri Pradeep Yadav is also present in the Court.

5. In para-12 of the personal affidavit, the explanation has been given as to why the name of Vishal Singh has been deleted from the charge-sheet.

6. In the aforesaid paragraph of the personal affidavit, name of one Vigya has been indicated, saying that she was present on the spot but her name has not been indicated in the police report.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised strong objection on the averments so indicated in para-12 of the personal affidavit but the fact remains that the charge-sheet has already been filed against two accused persons, namely, Ansh Yadav and Vanshika Yadav, whereas no charge-sheet has been filed against Vishal Singh and Vigya and, therefore, the petitioner may take appropriate legal recourse before the appropriate Court of law against the police report, if he feels aggrieved from the aforesaid police report and, it is needless to say that if the petitioner files any protest/objection on such police report before the Court concerned, taking all pleas and grounds to that effect, the same may be heard and disposed of by speaking and reasoned order, with expedition, strictly in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the concerning parties.

8. However, in the wake of aforesaid development, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is consigned to record. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) October 30, 2025 MVS/- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"1. Heard Shri Dev Mani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Vipul Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondent(s) and perused the material available on record.

2. This Court had passed the order dated 13.10.2025, which reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Dev Mani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities concern to conduct the fare and unbiased investigation in F.I.R. dated 13.10.2024, F.I.R. No.0537 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(3) & 324(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Sushant Golf City, District-Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition."

3. This writ petition was filed on 24.09.2025, but till date, learned Additional Government Advocate could not receive instructions from the opposite party No.3 i.e the Station House Officer, Police Station-Sushant Golf City, District- Lucknow, therefore, she is unable to assist the Court.

4. List/ put up this case on 16.10.2025 as fresh.

5. On that date, the opposite party No.3 i.e. the Station House Officer, Police Station-Sushant Golf City, District-Lucknow shall appear in person before the Court along with the case diary to assist the Court.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate shall intimate this Court to the Station House Officer concerned forthwith." 2 CRLP No. 9484 of 2025

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Shri Upendra Singh, Incharge Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station Sushant Golf City, Lucknow is present before this Court in person.

4. The aforesaid officer has filed a personal affidavit, which is taken on record.

5. Shri Vipul Singh, learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.13 of the personal affidavit, wherein it has been indicated that against accused Ansh Yadav, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 115(2), 109, 352, 351(3) and 324(4) of B.N.S., and against accused Vanshika Yadav, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 324(4) of B.N.S.

6. Further attention has been drawn towards paragraph no.12 of the personal affidavit, wherein it has been indicated that during course of the investigation nothing incriminating has been found against accused Vishal Singh S/o Niranjan Prasad Singh, therefore, 'final report' has been filed in favour of him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown a copy of the order dated 19.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 240 of 2024 (Vanshika Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order of the same date passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 246 of 2024 (Vishal Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) to demonstrate that when the aforesaid co-accused persons have their anticipatory bail applications, such anticipatory bail applications was strongly opposed by the investigating officer apprising the Court that all accused persons have committed offence and the injured persons have received serious injuries, therefore, if those persons granted anticipatory bail it may impact over the society at large. Considering the overall strong objection of the investigating officer concerned, this Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of both the accused persons. Both the aforesaid orders are taken on record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that if at the time of opposing anticipatory bail application, the fact brought into the notice of the Court that all accused persons have committed serious offence then he is unable to understand as to how and why against one accused person the offence has been converted in a lesser sections and against one accused person 'final report' has been filed.

9. He has further submitted that either at the time of opposing the anticipatory bail application wrong facts have been informed to the Court or there are some extraneous reasons or consideration diluting the case of co-accused persons.

10. Be that as it may, without making any observation on the aforesaid stand of the Inspector Incharge of the police station concerned, we find it appropriate that a personal affidavit be filed by him explaining the aforesaid anxiety of the Court, in as much as the aforesaid facts and circumstances need proper explanation.

11. List this case on 30th October, 2025, on that date, the officer who is present today in person, shall again appear in person along with his personal affidavit. 3 CRLP No. 9484 of 2025

12. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit to the personal affidavit, which has been filed today."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Shri Pradeep Yadav, Additional Inspector In-charge, Police Station Sushant Golf City, Lucknow has filed his personal affidavit, the same is taken on record.

4. Said Shri Pradeep Yadav is also present in the Court.

5. In para-12 of the personal affidavit, the explanation has been given as to why the name of Vishal Singh has been deleted from the charge-sheet.

6. In the aforesaid paragraph of the personal affidavit, name of one Vigya has been indicated, saying that she was present on the spot but her name has not been indicated in the police report.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised strong objection on the averments so indicated in para-12 of the personal affidavit but the fact remains that the charge-sheet has already been filed against two accused persons, namely, Ansh Yadav and Vanshika Yadav, whereas no charge-sheet has been filed against Vishal Singh and Vigya and, therefore, the petitioner may take appropriate legal recourse before the appropriate Court of law against the police report, if he feels aggrieved from the aforesaid police report and, it is needless to say that if the petitioner files any protest/objection on such police report before the Court concerned, taking all pleas and grounds to that effect, the same may be heard and disposed of by speaking and reasoned order, with expedition, strictly in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the concerning parties.

8. However, in the wake of aforesaid development, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is consigned to record. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) October 30, 2025 MVS/- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench