HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6911 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 2. By means of the present application, applicant has challenged the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki in F.R. No. 142 of 2016 (Meena Devi vs. Sabir Ali). Relevant portion of the order dated 20.03.2025 reads as under:- "07. अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है िक न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांिकत 29.06.2024 के माध्यम से अन्तगर्त धारा 202 दं०प्र०सं० के अन्तगर्त दो िबन्दुओं पर सूक्ष्म िववेचना करके संबंिधत थाने से आख्या आहूत की गई थी। उक्त आख्यानुसार मोटर साइिकल नं० UP32DU5460 के वाहन स्वामी िदनांक 19.12.2015 को मो० साबान पुत्र मो० हािसम िनवासी रईस कटरा जैदपुर, थाना जैदपुर, बाराबंकी थे। बाद में अब्दुल सत्तार पुत्र शौकत अली िनवासी 536KA/19 मेहदीगंज सीतापुर रोड, थाना हसनगंज, जनपद लखनऊ को उक्त मोटर साइिकल बेंच दी। िदनांक 19.12.2015 को UP32DU5460 मोटर साइिकल सािबर अली पुत्र सुल्तान अहमद िनवासी मौलवीगंज, थाना व कस्बा फतेहपुर, जनपद बाराबंकी चला रहा था तथा उक्त मोटर साइिकल पर मासूम अली पुत्र फजल िनवासी रईस कटरा जैदपुर, थाना जैदपुर, बाराबंकी पीछे था। वाहन स्वामी सावान का साला चालक सािबर अली है तथा वतर्मान वाहन स्वामी अब्दुल सत्तार का मो० 9695612496 है। 08. पिरवािदनी ने अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में कथन िकया है िक मेरे पित िदनांक 19.12.2015 को सफदरगंज गये थे। वापस आते समय मोटरसाइिकल वाला टक्कर मार िदया िजससे वह खत्म हो गये। उक्त मोटरसाइिकल भी थाने गयी थी। रात भर रखी गयी थी। "उपरोक्त कथन को उपरोक्त गवाहान द्वारा भी समिथत िकया गया है। अतः मामले के तथ्य एवं पिरिस्थितयों को ध्यान में रखते हुए न्यायालय का मत है िक िवपक्षी सािबर अली को अन्तगर्त धारा - 279, 304A भा०दं० सं० में तलब िकये जाने का आधार पयार्प्त है।" 3. Taking note of observations made in the above quoted paragraphs of the order dated 20.03.2025 particularly with regard to driving of motor cycle bearing No. UP 32 DU 5460 on 19.12.2015, the date of incident indicated in the FIR, according to which, applicant was driving the said motor cycle on the said date, on being confronted, learned counsel for the applicant has Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sabir Ali .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that liberty may be given to the applicant to file bail application before the trial court which may be directed to be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116. 4. Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty, as prayed for, and with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the court concerned, prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 6. Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) and Musheer Alam (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant apply for bail, whichever is earlier, they would not take any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case. It is made clear that in this regard, no application shall be entertained. August 27, 2025 Vinay/- A482 No. 6911 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench