Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 181580 (ALL)

KAREEM @ SALMAN @ KAREEM KHAN v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO.

/1845/2025 · 2025-11-27

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

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. - 1845 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 652 of 2025 under Section 109(1) BNS, Police Station- Thakurganj, District-Lucknow. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that named accused persons surrounded the injured on 22.10.2025 near Patel Park and co-accused Shahrukh has shot the injured by a country made pistol. The applicant and co-accused are alleged to have beaten the injured. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been implicated in the instant case only because that he is brother of co-accused. Role of causing firearm injury has not been assigned to the applicant. Applicant was not present on the spot rather he being taxi driver was at some other place. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record so also the rejection order dated 17.11.2025. On a perusal of the statements of the injured eye-witnesses, who were present on the spot, as also the injury report, prima facie, complicity of the applicant is evident. Although role of causing firearm injury has been attributed to co-accused Shahrukh, the involvement of the applicant, in view Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shakeel Ahmad, Zubair Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kareem @ Salman @ Kareem Khan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, cannot be denied. The offence is heinous in nature. It cannot be said that this is a case of false implication, nor that the applicant has been implicated merely to damage his reputation. In view of above, applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. The application is dismissed accordingly. November 27, 2025 Vinay/- NABAIL No. 1845 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,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