Ram Dulari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Crime Number: 532/2025, Under Sections: 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) and 352 Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, Police Station: P.G.I., District: Lucknow.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, on 20.10.2025 at around 4:30 p.m., the accused Anuj Yadav, owing to prior enmity, allegedly abused and assaulted the informant Ajay Yadav with a rod, resulting in a head injury. When the informant’s family members reached the spot to question him, Anuj, along with his family members, purportedly pelted stones from trees and thereafter assaulted them with lathis, iron rods, sharp-edged weapons and other objects with an intent to cause their death. Several members of the informant’s family, including women, sustained serious injuries and were admitted to the Trauma Centre. The accused reportedly threatened them before fleeing the spot.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a woman with no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated along with her entire family. It is submitted that cross FIRs have been lodged by both sides. From the side of the applicant, one Sonu Yadav lost his life due to the firing allegedly made by Kapil Yadav from his father’s licensed weapon, therefore,

¶13

NABAIL No. 1851 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

the complainant’s side was the aggressor.

¶16

Learned AGA, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application, contending that apart from the statements of seven injured witnesses, there is also an eye-witness account implicating the applicant. It is further submitted that the incident has been recorded in CCTV footage and it is not a case of false implication.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the CCTV footage clearly supports the innocence of the applicant, as the incident occurred in front of her house. It is further contended that although seven persons have been shown injured and two were advised for X-ray, no X-ray or CT scan report has been collected by the Investigating Officer.

¶18

Perused the record, so also the order whereby the applicant’s anticipatory bail application was rejected by the learned lower court, relevant portion of which reads as under::-

¶19

"Allegations against applicant are of active in common intention with co-accused persons, her family members and launching attack upon family members of the informant Ajay Yadav, when he with his family approached applicant's house to complaint about the acts of applicant's son Anuj Yadav who had hit informant on his head with a rod. Applicant is named in the first information report as the person who, at the outset, climbed upon tree and pelted stones at informant and his family members. In respective medico-legal report(s), Doctor has noted lacerated wound 8cmX1cmXbone-deep over parietal region of scalp of Ajay Yadav, lacerated wounds 10cmX1cmX bone-deep on scalp over parietal region, 3cmX1cmXmuscle-deep over the lateral margin of right eye of Vijay Yadav, a lacerated wound 7cmX2cmX tendondeep between 3rd and 4th digit of left foot of Varsha Yadav, abrasion 8cmX2cm (triangular in shape having base 2cm) in left hypochondrium of Jyoti Yadav, abrasion 1cmX1cm on right side neck which was 3cm above right clavicle and 7cm below right ear as well as lacerated wound 3cmX0.5 cmXbone-deep on base of left thumb of left hand wherein active bleeding was present, on the person of Preeti Yadav, lacerated wound 2cmX1cmX bone-deep on head which was 2 cm lateral to midline and 8 cm above left ear wherein active bleeding was present, on the person of Usha Devi, pain in lower back of Vicha Vati and lacerated wound 4cmX1cmXbone-deep on left side of head, 4cm left lateral to midline and 5cm above head, 4cm left lateral to mid-line and 5cm above left ear wherein active bleed was present and was advised for NCCT,

¶20

NABAIL No. 1851 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

presence of pain and swelling, tenderness on left cheek, chest, right shoulder for which X-ray was advised and lacerated wound 2cmX1cmXmuscle-deep on left leg below knee which was 5cm left lateral to mid-line wherein active bleeding was present, for which X-Ray is advised. Investigation is pending in this case. It is well settled that power to grant anticipatory bail is extra-ordinary and should be exercised sparingly.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts, after hearing learned counsels for parties at length as well as the fact of active involvement of applicant in the alleged incident, grounds for anticipatory bail are not found to be sufficient and as such, this anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected."

¶26

Upon due consideration to the fact that cross FIRs have been lodged by both sides; one person from the applicant’s side has died; seven persons from the complainant’s side have sustained injuries including two grievous injuries as per medical report; the incident is admitted by both parties; and the CCTV footage supports the occurrence, this Court finds that in view of the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the offence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶27

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

December 2, 2025 R.C.

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Dulari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dulari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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