Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 135238 (ALL)

POOJA KUMARI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. GOVT. LKO AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/351/2025 · 2025-04-22

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22722 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 351 of 2025 Applicant :- Pooja Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwa Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Vishwa Nath Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Nikita Mishra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. This is the second application filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.1114 of 2024, under Sections 108, 3(5), 351(3) BNS, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki. 3. The first Anticipatory Bail Application No.288 of 2025 was dismissed by this court by means of an order dated 04.04.2025. While rejecting the first anticipatory bail application this court had observed that three co-accused persons namely Surendra Yadav, Siyawati and Kuldeep Yadav have been granted regular bail by means of an order dated 18.12.2024, passed by the Sessions Judge. 4. The second application has been filed on the ground that two co-accused persons namely Amrit Lal and Ravi Shankar have been granted interim anticipatory bail by means of this court's order dated 30.01.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.99 of 2025. 5. The fact of grant of interim anticipatory bail to two co- accused persons on 30.01.2025 was in existence at the time of consideration of first anticipatory bail application of the applicant but this fact was not brought to the notice of this court. The second application has not been moved on any fresh ground but a ground which was in existence at the time of disposal of the first anticipatory bail application and which was not placed before the court. 6. In these circumstances this court does not find any good ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application is rejected. . (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench