Anant Ram Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anant Ram Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application disposed of with liberty to the applicant to apply for bail and to move a discharge application before the court below, both to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law; police officer concerned not to take coercive action against the applicant for 30 days from the order or till the bail application is filed, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case No. 481/2018 (State Vs. Ayodhya & others) under section 379 IPC and 4/10 of Forest Act, including the cognizance and summoning order dated 23.12.2013, ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 B.N.S.S. is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to apply for bail before the court concerned, such prayer for bail to be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, in view of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil and Musheer Alam.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the applicant to move a discharge application before the court below, which shall be decided expeditiously if there is no other legal impediment and in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

It is observed that the police officer concerned is expected not to take any coercive action against the applicant for a period of 30 days from the date of the order or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 B.N.S.S. — Quashing sought of entire proceedings in Case No. 481/2018 (State Vs. Ayodhya & others) under section 379 IPC and 4/10 of Forest Act arising from Case Crime/FIR No. 721 of 2013, PS-Payagpur, District Bahraich, including cognizance and summoning order dated 23.12.2013 — After argument, counsel for applicant sought liberty to file a bail application before the trial court in view of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, and to prefer a discharge application; learned A.G.A. had no objection — Application disposed of with liberty as prayed; bail prayer and discharge application to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law; police officer concerned expected not to take coercive action against the applicant for 30 days from the order or till the bail application is filed, whichever is earlier (Manish Kumar, J.; order dated 7.7.2025).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38380

Court No. - 27

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1988 of 2019

Applicant :- Anant Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

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

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 B.N.S.S.) has been filed for the following main relief:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 481/2018 (State Vs. Ayodhya & others) under section 379 IPC and 4/10 of Forest Act in Case Crime/FIR No.721 of 2013, PS-Payagpur, District Bahraich including the cognizance and summoning order dated 23.12.2013, in the interest of justice.

As an interim measure it is prayed that Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 481/2018 (State Vs. Ayodhya & others) under section 379 IPC and 4/10 of Forest Act in Case Crime/FIR No.721 of 2013, PS-Payagpur, District Bahraich including the cognizance and summoning order dated 23.12.2013, in the interest of justice."

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicant to file bail application before the trial court which may be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 as also to prefer a discharge application before the court below and the same may be decided expeditiously.

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 B.N.S.S. is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the Court concerned, his

prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Liberty is also granted to the applicant to move discharge application before the court below and the same shall be decided expeditiously, if there is no any other legal impediment and in accordance with law.

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observation made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) and Musheer Alam (supra) , this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of .

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench