Dismissed

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024NABAIL/80/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS. The applicant claimed false implication alleging he poured hot oil on the complainant, causing over 40% burn injuries. The court held that the injury report supported the First Information Report version, finding no grounds to intervene.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71105

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 80 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohsin Iqbal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0303 of 2024, under sections 191(2), 118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 308(5) of B.N.S. P.S.- Nawabganj District - Gonda.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that in fact the complainant himself has poured the heated oil over the applicant and there are burn blister injuries over the body of the applicant and he has burnt more than 40%. He also submits that the injuries has not been explained and in fact the complainant himself is the aggressor and as such, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that as per the injury report, the injured has received burn injuries and that supports the version of the first information report.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires from the injury report that the injured has received burn injuries on his body, which promptly supports the version of FIR.

¶11

In view of the above, this Court do not find any good ground to intervene in the anticipatory bail application.

¶12

Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed.

¶13

Consigned to records.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Mayank

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Naniya Hansh Vs U.O.I.

Mohd. Alkamar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Vikku Alias Vikas Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Suresh Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Shubham Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Krishnakant Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.