MOHAMMAD IMRAN GHAZI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO
NABAIL/494/2025 · 2025-05-21
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 140617 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 140617 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30152 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 494 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohammad Imran Ghazi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Zeeshan Alvi, Ujjwal Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Shri Zeeshan Alvi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.114 of 2025 under Sections 105 B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Kakori, District- Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 17.04.2025 stating that during Ruksati Ceremony being performed after a wedding, some unknown persons indulged in celebratory firing during which the informant's 70 years old father suffered a gunshot injury in his abdomen and he died.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he does not posses any arms license.
6. Learned AGA-I has opposed the bail application and he has produced relevant extracts of the case diary.
7. Several eye-witnesses have stated that the applicant was
firing celebratory shots with the licensed rifle of his uncle. One of the shots hit the informant's father the due to which he died.
8. Having considered the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court by granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant.
9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
10. In case the applicant appears before the trial Court and files an application for regular bail, the same shall be considered and decided on its merits expeditiously, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the rejection of anticipatory bail of the applicant. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 21.5.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench