Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 190375 (ALL)

KHUSHWAKT ALI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME AND ANOTHER

/1354/2025 · 2025-12-08

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 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1354 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 as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.549 of 2021 under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Dhaurahra, District Lakhimpur Kheri. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that three cases have been shown in the gang chart. Out of these, in Case Crime No. 430 of 2019, the applicant has already been acquitted. He has also explained the criminal history of one more case in the bail application. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submitted that out of the three cases shown in the gang chart, two are heinous in nature. One is Case Crime No. 173 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 325, 336, 427, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. The other is Case Crime No. 33 of 2020 under Section 392 IPC. Perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the applicant has a criminal history of four cases. Out of these four, three are shown in the gang chart, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Khushwakt Ali .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another .....Opposite Party(s) and out of the three cases shown in the gang chart, two are heinous in nature. The FIR appears to have been registered in the year 2020, and no explanation has been given on behalf of the applicant as to why, after five years of registration of the FIR, the applicant is approaching this Court. The learned trial court, while rejecting the bail application of the applicant along with the co-accused persons, has noted the chequered criminal history of the applicant and the co- accused persons. The operative part of the order passed by the trial court is extracted below:— "Š?-}7+ Š-/ 9K:)? ?9+K?} /O )?/</ ?-/I} 9Im Š-/ 9K:)? ?9+K?} = 7K7:??} 5O )I9?9 Š?-}7+ 5? 5 9I9 7?)- ?79K9 9I --? =9 +)O 9??-/K 5O 9?- ?/;59 ?-5, -M?-5 ;?- 5O ?; ?79K9 -)?59 {--? 5?// 96)O 9O-I 89 /O 8I9 59 ;?)I )o)?, 9;9?, -? 5? 9O ;I9 9K59 7?;I 7;M< 59-O y / <)-? 9O /?9+I? 59)?, ?<99O /M9?) ;?< /Km/I 9K <?)O --? m/ 9 7I) +9?/ 59-O 9Im 7K7:??} 5O )I9?9 Š?-} 6I?=} 5O ?={o /I0 09 0- 173/15, /?9?-147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 325, 336, 427, 452, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, /I0 09 0-430/19, /?9?-147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, /I0 09 0-33/20, /?9?-392 -?o/ o9 o, ?-/I} 9K?) ;I 5O ?={o /I0 09 0-173/15, /?9?-147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 325, 336, 427, 452, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, /Io o9 o-430/19, /?9?-147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o = ?-/I} 7ImK +} 9I/9 5O ?={o /I0 09 0-173/15, /?9?-147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 325, 336, 427, 452, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, /I0 09 0-430/19, /?9?-147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, -?)?/M999? ?<;? 6I9I 5? +9?/ + <I5K - 9Im -?)O 9O Š?o- _/? 5O )I9?9 Š?-}/=O/5 6I?=} 5O ?=yo /Io o9o-173/15, /?9?-147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 323, 336, 427, 452, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, /Ko o9o-430/19 /?9?-147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, /Ko o9 o-33/20, /?9?-392 -?o/ o9 o, ?-/I} 9K?) ;I 5O ?={o /I0 09 0-173/15, /?9?-147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 323, 336, 427, 452, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, /Io o9 o- 430/19, /?9?-147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o = ?-/I} 7ImK +} 9I/9 5O ?={o /I0 09 0-173/15, /?9?-147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 323, 336, 427, 452, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, /I0 09 0-430/19, /?9?-147, 149, ABAIL No. 1354 of 2025 2 452, 323, 504, 506 -?o/ o9 o, -?)? /M999? ?<;? 6I9I + <I5K - 9Im Š}-I- Š59+ /O Š-/ 9K:)? ?9+K?} = 7K7 :??} /O ?-/I}7+ 5O ?={o }= / = 7K7 5O ;I)9 9K< ;I = m/ 9/}/K 5O DZ?9? ?-5, -M?-5 = o?)/?-I ;?- 5O ?; ?79K9 -)?59 {--? 5?// 96)O 9O-I 89 /O 8I9 59 ;?)I )o)?, 9;9?, -? 5? 9O ;I9 9K59 7?;I 7;M< 59-O y / <)-? 9O /?9+I? 59)?, ?<99O /M9?) ;?< /Km/I 9K <?)O --? m/ 9 7I) +9?/ 5??9- 59)? ?-5?-- 9Im +9?/ 5I 7o-I9-?, -m/ = +?9?}-?-/K 5K o?Ǹ7- 96-O y Š?-}7+ 5K ?Ŏ/ </?)- ?//O <?)O 5? /?9 +/?}o- )9K 9Im Š?-}7+/=O/57+ 5O DZ?9? Š}-I- ?Ŏ/ </?)- Š?-})? +} ?)9}- ?5/O <?)O /K_/ 9Im" In view of the discussions made hereinabove, and considering the criminal history of the applicant involving heinous offences, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. December 8, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S ABAIL No. 1354 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench