Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13979 (ALL)

JAYDEEP SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/821/2025 · 2025-02-13

Vivek Varma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21228 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 821 of 2025 Applicant :- Jaydeep Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State-opposite party and perused the material available on record. 2. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 518 of 2024, under sections 123, 142, 127(2), 64, 61(2), 115(2), 351(2) BNS, Police Station Jahangirabad, District- Bulandshahr. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Earlier the father of the informant-victim lodged an FIR regarding missing of the informant (victim) on 18.08.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 382 pf 2024, under Section 87 of BNS, Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr. In the said case, final report was submitted. The present FIR has been lodged by the victim herself with regard to the incident dated 10.08.2024. The allegation of rape has been levelled against the co-accused Navdeep Sharma. Only allegation against the applicant is of threatening the informant-victim. However, in the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, there is no allegation against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. 4. Learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of the police report. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, in particular the fact, that in the FIR the allegation of rape has been levelled against the co-accused Navdeep Sharma, however, in the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS there is no allegation against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report. 7. 7. In the event of arrest, the applicant Jaydeep Sharma be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193 (3) BNSS on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions: (i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) the applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. 8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 9. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 10. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. 11. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Lbm/- Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad