VIJAY PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
NABAIL/2/2024 · 2025-04-22
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 150221 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 150221 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22829 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava,Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Onkar Pandey,Vindeshwri Pandey Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Vindeshwri Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.
2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. This first anticipatory has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.460 of 2000 & Criminal Case No. 2024 of 2023 under Section 364 IPC, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur.
3. Learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the anticipatory bail application while drawing attention to the counter affidavit dated 12.08.2024 filed by opposite party no.2 to submit that there is material concealment of fact in the present application to the effect that the final report was filed in the present matter whereafter it was treated as complaint case vide order dated 26.11.2002 which was challenged in Revision No. 381 of 2004 which on being dismissed, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 828 of 2005 was filed which was also dismissed on 08.03.2011 with recall also being dismissed on 18.04.2017 and non-bailable warrants were issued in the year 2014 & 2016 and process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. also been issued by Trial Court. It is, therefore, submitted that said aspects indicate that the applicant is not co-operating during the course of trial.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with the submission that he had no knowledge with regard to issuance of non- bailable warrant. On such preliminary objections being raised,
learned counsel for applicant on the basis of instructions seeks
to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to file a regular bail application..
5. Considering aforesaid facts, the application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file regular bail.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench