HARIRAM PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME U.P. AND ANOTHER
NABAIL/1088/2025 · 2025-08-26
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 159719 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 159719 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1088 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 500/2025, U/s-105, 352 of BNS, P.S.- Kotwali Shahar, District- Hardoi. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Arjun Singh Somvanshi, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. In the FIR, it is alleged that the informant’s 70-year-old father, a heart patient advised by doctors to avoid exposure to loud noise, was present on 17.07.2025 at about 9:30 a.m. when the applicant and his son allegedly attempted to forcibly extract water. On the informant’s objection, his family members also reached the spot. It is further alleged that the applicant and others, armed with a fawda, issued threats to the informant’s family despite being aware of the father’s illness. On being provoked, the father collapsed and was taken to the Government Hospital, Hardoi, where he later died. The accused are alleged to have acted with an intention to kill by creating an atmosphere of terror. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the postmortem of the deceased, conducted on 17.07.2025 immediately after the incident, reveals no visible external injuries. The cause of death has been recorded as cardio- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Dayal, Anmol Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Arjun Singh Somvanshi Hariram Pandey .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
respiratory failure. It is argued that the case does not fall within the ambit of culpable homicide, as the essential ingredients of Section 105 BNS are missing. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the accused caused death with the intention of killing or with the intention of inflicting such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. It is further contended that the deceased died due to a heart attack, and not on account of any act of the applicant. The applicant, a retired Army personnel aged about 60 years, himself suffers from several ailments and has undergone angioplasty. He has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.
The complainant’s counsel submits that since the deceased was a heart patient, medically advised against bearing stress or shock, and as the accused was fully aware of this condition, he deliberately acted in a manner that resulted in the death. On due consideration to the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the postmortem report reveals no antemortem injury, the essential ingredients of Sections 105/352 BNS prima facie appear to be missing, and taking into account the undertaking given by the applicant to cooperate in the investigation, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the investigation In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond 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:- The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within twenty days from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without NABAIL No. 1088 of 2025 2
previous permission of the Court. The application is allowed. August 26, 2025 R.C.
NABAIL No. 1088 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench