Hamesh @ Ram Sewak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 641 of 2025

Hamesh @ Ram Sewak

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Bhushan, Praveen Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd. Islam Khan

¶5

Court No. - 13

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Chandra Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Mohd. Asif Khan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶8

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.06.2025:

¶9

"The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 411 of 2020, under sections 323/34, 325/34, 307/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., 7 CLA Act, P.S. Laharpur, District Sitapur.

¶10

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

¶11

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 30.09.2020, when the informant's husband went to shop of Vinod to purchase groceries, an altercation took place with one Ramu Tiwari. After sometime, the informant?s husband returned home. At around 9:30 pm, accused persons four in number came hurling abuses, who were having lathi and danda in their hands. They hurled caste related abuses and started beating husband of the informant. As a result of the attack, he sustained a grievous injury to his leg.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that eyewitnesses present at the place of incident, namely Pramod Kumar Pasi and Harish Gautam, have denied the prosecution's version in their statements. Though the applicant?s name was dropped while filing charge sheet, during the trial, PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 alleged complicity

¶13

ABAIL No. 641 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

of the applicant in their testimonies.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he has no previous criminal antecedents and he will cooperate in the trail proceedings.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶18

Two weeks' time is granted for filing objections or a counter affidavit.

¶19

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶20

List the matter on 18.07.2025.

¶21

On due consideration the statements of independent witnesses, the injury report of the victim, summoning of the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial, I am of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal & Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his continued cooperation in the trial.

¶22

In view of the above, the accused applicant Hamesh @ Ram Sewak is directed to surrender before trial court within twenty days from today. The accused applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.

¶23

(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶25

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶26

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶27

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶28

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."

¶29

As per the office report dated 17.07.2025, the notice issued to the opposite party No.2 stands served and learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No.2 on 15.07.2025 but no counter affidavit has

¶30

ABAIL No. 641 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

been filed by the complainant.

¶33

The State has also chosen not to file any counter affidavit.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 04.06.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶37

September 16, 2025

¶38

S. Shivhare

¶39

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶40

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

Hamesh @ Ram Sewak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamesh @ Ram Sewak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Mukesh Dhanuk @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 4 Others

Zargam Ali @ Zargam Ali Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko.

Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Ankur Srivastava @ Ankur Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Annexe Bhawan Lko. and Another

Kameshwar Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Arti Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another