Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48192

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2356 of 2024

Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Shukla,Rahul Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Case called out. None appears on behalf of the complainant. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0073 of 2024, under Sections 304, 323 & 324 I.P.C., Police Station-Jagatpur, District-Raebareli.

¶8

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.7.2025 has passed the following order:-

¶9

"1.Heard Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶10

2. Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date, for which, necessary steps be taken within a week.

¶11

3. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶12

4. This anticipatory bail application has been filed apprehending the arrest of the applicant in Case Crime No.0073 of 2024, under Sections 304, 323 & 324 I.P.C., Police Station-Jagatpur, District-Raebareli.

¶13

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶14

6. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) which was lodged on 28.03.2024 for the alleged incident dated 26.03.2024 without explaining the delay implicating as many as four accused persons including the present applicant. In the F.I.R., no motive or intention has been indicated. When the F.I.R. was lodged the victim (since deceased) was alive, therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 323, 324 & 308 I.P.C. Since the deceased was under influence of alcohol, so he fell down from the Motorcycle and received some injuries inasmuch as the medical examination report of the deceased indicates that smell of alcohol comes from mouth of the patient and slurry of speech. As per opinion of the Doctor, the Injury No.1 has been received on account of consumption of alcohol. The victim was admitted in K.G.M.U. on 27.03.2024 from where he was discharged, though the victim died on 29.04.2024 and his postmortem conducted on 30.04.2024. The deceased received mainly five injuries. Those are old two lacerated wounds, old abrasion, old tracheotomy hole and old drainage tube hole through thorax.

¶15

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a matter of fact the deceased died on account of accident after about one month from the incident in question but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 28.03.2024 against the present applicant and others having ulterior motive and extraneous design in the mind of the informant. The deceased was drunkered as has been indicated by the Doctor. So far as the role of the present applicant is concerned, the investigation is gong on. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the investigation properly.

¶16

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the present applicant is a young boy of 19 years, who is a student of BA-II year, and this fact has been shown to the learned Session Court in his anticipatory bail application.

¶17

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards para-13 of the rejoinder affidavit, whereby the criminal history of two other cases of the present applicant has been explained and in those cases the applicant has not received any summon from the learned court below.

¶18

10. The learned Additional Government Advocate has informed that the nonbailable warrant has been issued against the applicant and the application under Sections 84 & 85 of B.N.S.S. is pending consideration before the learned trial court.

¶19

11. The matter requires considered.

¶20

12. Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

¶21

13. List this case in the week commencing 18.08.2025 within top ten cases.

¶22

14. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant (Rohit Kumar) shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

I. that the present applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 18.07.2025 at 11:00 AM to cooperate in the investigation and shall further cooperate in the investigation till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report, failing which, this interim protection may be withdrawn on the next date.

¶24

II. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶25

III. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶26

IV. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶27

V. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶28

VI. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses."

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been released on interim anticipatory bail after filing of the personal bonds and two sureties before the investigating officer.

¶30

He has duly cooperated in the investigation. He has not misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted by the Court. He undertakes to further cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial and in case, he is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of same.

¶31

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the investigation is going on. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation.

¶32

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will further cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial, the interim protection granted by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 14.7.2025 is made absolute.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶34

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Shravan

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ritesh Mittal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Shiva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Nishant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Maynoor @ Sharukh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Singh @ Chunna Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow