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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 647 of 2025

Kameshwar Prasad

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Pal Singh

¶8

Court No. - 13

¶9

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶11

The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 is not present before this Court.

¶12

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.06.2025:

¶13

"The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 403/2019, under sections 436/323 I.P.C. P.S. Ikauna, District Shrawasti.

¶14

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

¶15

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 13.02.2011 at around 12:00 noon, accused Arjun Shukla and Kamleshwar Tiwari, along with certain antisocial elements, attempted to take possession of a piece of disputed land, the matter of which is subjudice before the Civil Court. When the complainant and female members of the family objected, they were allegedly assaulted with fists and kicks, and the thatched structure on the land was set ablaze.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report dated 24.02.2011. A protest petition was filed against the final report, which was allowed, and the matter was treated as a

¶17

ABAIL No. 647 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

complaint case. The complainant?s statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and statements of four witnesses were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., pursuant to which the applicant was summoned vide order dated 17.09.2015.

¶20

It has been further submitted that against the said summoning order, a criminal revision was preferred before the learned Additional District Judge, Shrawasti, which was rejected vide order dated 31.07.2018. Subsequently, the applicant approached this Court in Case No. 4079/2019, which was decided vide order dated 27.02.2019 granting liberty to file a discharge application. In compliance of the order dated 27.02.2019, a discharge application was moved before the trial court, but the same was rejected vide order dated 06.08.2019.

¶21

It is further submitted that the rejection order dated 06.08.2019 was challenged by coaccused Arjun Kumar Shukla @ Arjun Shastri by way of a criminal revision, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shrawasti, vide order dated 22.05.2020, remanding the matter back with directions to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity to both parties. In compliance with the remand order, the discharge application was re-considered but again rejected vide order dated 24.01.2022.

¶22

The co-accused again approached the Sessions Judge, Shrawasti, challenging the order dated 24.01.2022, but the criminal revision was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2025. Thereafter, the present applicant moved an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge, Shrawasti, which too was rejected.

¶23

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that a purely civil dispute is sought to be given a criminal colour. It is an admitted fact that a civil suit regarding the disputed property is pending between the applicant and opposite party no. 2. It is argued that the criminal proceedings have been initiated solely to exert undue pressure upon the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶24

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, he could not dispute the fact that civil suit is pending between applicant and opposite party no. 2.

¶25

Two weeks' time is allowed to file objections/ counter affidavit.

¶26

Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶27

List on 23.07.2025.

¶28

On due consideration to the pendency of the civil suit, number of litigation, the filing of the final report by the Investigating Officer, and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant to cooperate in the trial proceedings, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on interim anticipatory bail, in light of the

¶29

ABAIL No. 647 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his continued cooperation in the trial.

¶32

In view of the above, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court within twenty days from today. The accused applicant shall be released on interim 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.

¶33

(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;

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed."

¶39

The State as well as the opposite party No.2 have not filed any counter affidavit.

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 06.06.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶43

September 16, 2025

¶44

S. Shivhare

¶45

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶46

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kameshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

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

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

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