Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 140073 (ALL)

HAZRAAT ALI (ACCORDING TO THE FIR) v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO.

NABAIL/456/2025 · 2025-05-15

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28436 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 456 of 2025 Applicant :- Hazraat Ali (According To The FIR) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 2. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 276 of 2024, under sections 191 (2), 190, 115(2), 125, 352, 351(3), 118(1), 110 BNS, Police Station Ityathok, District Gonda. 3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 17.7.2024 when the accused persons attacked family members of the informant and inflicted serious injury upon them. 4. It has been submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated the charges levelled against him, which could be evident from the report that injury report do not corroborate the allegations levelled in the FIR. 5. It has been further submitted that all the injuries suffered are simple in nature. 6. It has been submitted that the applicant has cooperated during the course of investigation where after charge sheet was filed. 7. It has been submitted that all the offences levelled against the applicant are punishable with maximum sentence of 7 years. 8. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application with submission that applicant has not appeared before the court concerned as well as non-bailable warrants has been issued. 9. Learned AGA on the basis of instruction, however, admits that the applicant has cooperated during the course of investigation and previous criminal history of one case has already been explained. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, controverted the criminal history of the applicant. The applicant has not disclosed the fact that non-bailable warrant issued against him. He has placed reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another passed on 14.3.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023, Laves Versus State (NCT of Delhi) passed on 31.08.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2012 (arising ourt of SLP (Crl.) No. 1961 of 2012) and Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Aditya Sarda passed 9.4.2025 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13956 of 2023) 11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that medical report does not corroborate the allegation made in the FIR. The applicant has cooperated during the course of investigation where after charge sheet was filed. Previous criminal history has been explained. It is also evident that non- bailable warrant was issued. All the offences levelled against the applicant are punishable of maximum sentence of 7 years. 12. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. 13. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Hazraat Ali (According to the FIR) shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. (2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. (3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (4) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this protection. 14. The application stands allowed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench