LAV LESH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER
ABAIL/820/2025 · 2025-10-31
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 181753 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 181753 (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 438 CR.P.C. No. - 820 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
1. The present application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in case crime 177 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kamlapur, District Sitapur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 3. This Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 28.07.2025 has passed the following order:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for opposite party no.1-State. Issue notice to opposite party no.2. 2. The anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking protection with regard to Case Crime No.177 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kamlapur, District Sitapur. 4. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 08.04.2024 at about 09.30 A.M. when the applicants alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked the informant and inflicted injuries upon him. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that only general role of inflicting injuries upon informant has been attributed without any specific role being assigned to applicants. Learned counsel has drawn attention to injury report to submit that injury suffered although on vital part is simple in nature. It is submitted that applicants have cooperated in the investigation whereafter charge-sheet was filed and does not have any previous criminal history. A co-accused namely Mangu who was assigned similar role has been granted interim protection vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalji Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Lav Lesh And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 262 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks parity with that order. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that subsequent X-ray report clearly indicates undisplaced hairline fracture on the left side of frontal bone of skull seen and therefore section 308 IPC is clearly made out.
It is however admitted that general role has been assigned to applicants that applicants do not have any previous criminal history. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record as well as the order of co-accused Mangu, it appears from a perusal of FIR that only general role has been assigned to all accused without any specific assignment of role to applicants in causing the injury. It also appears that applicants have cooperated during course of investigation whereafter charge-sheet has been filed. Admittedly, applicants do not have any previous criminal history. 8. Without expressing any opinion of merits of the case, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS. 9. List this case on 19.08.2025, as fresh alongwith service report. 10. Objections may be filed in the meantime. 11.
In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, applicants Lav Lesh and Mukesh Kumar shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. 12. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the ABAIL No. 820 of 2025 2
witnesses"
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in compliance of order extracted above, the applicants have filed bonds and they have been enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. The applicants have co-operated in the investigation and further undertake to cooperate in the trial. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application, however, he could not dispute the fact that the applicants have co-operated in the investigation. He further submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. 7.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, applicants have no previous criminal history, they have cooperated in the investigation, undertaking that they shall cooperate in the trial, as also considering the dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the interim protection granted earlier vide order dated 28.07.2025 is liable to be and is hereby made absolute. 8. The application is allowed accordingly. October 31, 2025 DiVYa ABAIL No. 820 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench