Disposed

Abhishek Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2025NABAIL/12181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under section 482 BNSS in a murder case where applicants were not named in the FIR but disclosed later by injured witnesses who subsequently disowned them by affidavit. Bail granted until submission of police report.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, with conditions.

Abhishek Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31750

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12181 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Abhishek Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pratap Singh,Pradeep Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Second supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the applicants, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

This application under section 482 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.236 of 2024, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 190, 103(1), 115(2) B.N.S., and 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Bansdih, District Ballia.

¶9

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were not named in the first information report and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report seven accused and some unknown persons are alleged to have caused death of the brother of the informant Rohit Pandey. In the alleged incident, the informant Rajesh Pandey and another person Shubham Tiwari also received injuries. Subsequently, in the statement of the informant and another injured Shubham Tiwari the names of the applicants were disclosed. It is contended that the said statement is an afterthought. Subsequent thereto, the two injured submitted affidavits to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ballia that the applicants were not involved in the alleged incident. In such circumstances it is contended that at this stage the exact role of the applicants are not clear. The criminal history of the applicants have been explained in para 3 and 4 of the first supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that the investigation is pending and the applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, in particular of the fact that the applicants were not named in the first information report, the fact that in the statement of the informant and another injured Subhash Tiwari the name of the applicants was disclosed, the fact that the two injured submitted affidavits to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ballia that the applicants were not involved in the alleged incident, the fact that at this stage the exact role of the applicants are not clear, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants Abhishek Singh and Avinash Singh be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under section 193 (3) B.N.S., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) The applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while

¶19

considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶20

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

The application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.3.2025 S.S.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhishek Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases