Junaid @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48688

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1642 of 2024

Applicant :- Junaid @ Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhinav Singh,Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Sushil Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶7

Although the cause list shows the name of three learned counsels for the complainant, neither any of them are present to assist the Court nor has any request been made for adjournment of the case. Therefore, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the application.

¶8

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.05.2025:

¶9

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Sri Sushil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for informant.

¶11

3. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 603 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 427, 452, 307, 506/34 IPC, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi.

¶12

4. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 08.09.2016 nominating the applicant and co-accused on the ground that they had attacked and inflicted injuries upon the father of informant resulting in grievous injuries.

¶13

5. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations

¶14

levelled against him and that the summoning order wa earlier challenged by applicant along with co-accused in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.8123 of 2018 in which proceedings were stayed initially and thereafter vide order dated 18.09.2023, the said petition was allowed primarily on the ground that injuries suffered were not on vital part and therefore summons could not have been issued under Section 307 IPC. The case was remanded for passing a fresh order. It is submitted that subsequently in pursuance thereof, fresh summon has been issued on 25.10.2023 again including Section 307 IPC. It is further submitted that considering the order passed by this Court, Section 307 IPC is clearly not made out. It is also submitted that earlier charge sheet has earlier been filed on 22.10.2016 in which applicant has cooperated.

¶15

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed anticipatory bail with submission that the applicant is clearly nominated not only in the FIR but also in the statement of injured as the person who fired upon the injured. It is however admitted that criminal history of applicant has been explained and applicant had cooperated during the course of investigation earlier.

¶16

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the aspect of imputing Section 307 IPC has already been frowned upon by this Court in its earlier order dated 18.09.2023 whereafter again the same section has been imputed against the applicant. Injury report clearly indicates the injury being suffered on non vital part of the body and therefore imputation of Section 307 IPC would be subject matter of consideration.

¶17

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail.

¶18

9. Let the accused-applicant Junaid @ Pappu as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶19

10. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶21

(ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶22

11. List this case on 08.07.2025.

¶23

12. Objections may be filed in the meantime."

¶24

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the materials collected during the investigation and a copy of the charge sheet submitted on 22.10.2016.

¶25

The complainant has chose not to file any counter affidavit.

¶26

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already furnished bail bonds in terms of the order dated 26.05.2025.

¶27

The learned A.G.A.-I does not allege violation of any condition of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶28

Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is nothing which may persuade this Court from taking a different view than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶29

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 26.05.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶30

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 S. Shivhare

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Junaid @ Pappu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid @ Pappu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Infant Lado Thru. Her Father Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.and 3 Others

Ajmeri @ Valiullah @ Mohd. Valiullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jang Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Shrikrishn vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kanhaiya Thru. Next Friend Smt. Kusuma Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) Lko. and 5 Others