Dismissed¶14

Narendra Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024NABAIL/8371/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS refused - Narendra Kumar and another; Case Crime No.0154 of 2024, Ss.115(2), 351(2), 109 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, P.S. Jarcha, District Gautam Buddh Nagar; armed attack with deadly weapons on informant's brother Pradeep on 26.7.2024; defence contentions of false implication, no independent witness, no medical opinion of life-threatening injuries; A.G.A. opposition citing named accused and supporting independent witnesses; application dismissed with advice to seek regular bail and expeditious disposal by court below; decided 31.8.2024; single bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC:140564.

What did the court decide?

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

Narendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants (Narendra Kumar and another) are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in regard to Case Crime No.0154 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, P.S. Jarcha, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

After carefully examining the submissions of the applicants' counsel and the material on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants; the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is refused.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused. The Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) dismissed the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS filed by Narendra Kumar and another seeking protection in regard to Case Crime No.0154 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, P.S. Jarcha, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. The FIR, lodged on 27.7.2024 at 01:43 hrs, alleged that on 26.7.2024 at about 09:00 pm the applicants, together with Leelu @ Pappu, Sachin and Saurav, armed with deadly weapons attacked the informant's brother Pradeep and caused him severe injuries. Counsel for the applicants urged false implication, absence of independent witnesses, and the lack of any doctor's precise opinion that the injuries were of a nature that may cause death; the A.G.A. opposed, noting the applicants were named in the FIR and that independent witnesses supported the prosecution version. Holding that, on the material on record, it could not be said that no offence was made out against the applicants, the Court found no justification for granting anticipatory bail and refused the prayer, advising the applicants to move a regular bail application before the appropriate forum, which the court below was to consider and dispose of expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:140564

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8371 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Narendra Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for applicants and learned counsel for the informant as well as perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicants for protection in regard to Case Crime No.0154 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, P.S.- Jarcha, DistrictGautam Buddh Nagar.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the informant lodged an FIR on 27.7.2024 at 01:43 hrs stating therein that on 26.7.2024 at about 09:00 pm, the applicant along with other accused persons, namely, Leelu @ Pappu, Sachin and Saurav armed with deadly weapons attacked on informant's brotherPradeep. It is alleged that the accused persons caused severe injuries to Pradeep. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the spot.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicants. He further submits that as per medical report, no precise opinion of any doctor is available on record stating that the injuries sustained by the victim were of such a nature that may cause death of person to whom those injuries are said to have caused. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The

¶10

circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He submits that the accused-applicants are named in the impugned FIR. It it an admitted case that a quarrel took place between the applicants and the injured person and statement of the injured person has not been annexed to the affidavit. He further submits the independent witnesses have also supported the prosecution version, therefore, keeping in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶13

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material available on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused.

¶14

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Applicants are advised to move regular bail application before the appropriate forum and if such application is given, the court below shall consider and disposed of the bail application expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 31.8.2024 Krishna*

¶16

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narendra Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases