Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26420

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1525 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Prakash Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama has been filed today in the Court by Sri Nigamendra Shukla, Advocate, on behalf of the informant, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Bhanu Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 7 of 2025, under Sections 125(2), 118(2) of BNS, P.S. Chaula, District Bulandshahar, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Allegation in the FIR is that applicant has made boundary of his field of naked wire running electricity, when informant's son came in touch of wire, as a result whereof, he received serious injuries. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant FIR has been lodged due to previous enmity and only to harass the applicant. Investigation is going on. During investigation, I.O. has added Section 118(2) BNS. Applicant has no previous criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Medical examination report is supporting the prosecution story. Applicant without getting any permission, he placed open wire boundary of his field which caused electric shock to the informant's son and sustained grievous injuries. It is not a case of false implication. Applicant is named in the FIR. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence,

¶11

the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

¶12

The object of Section 482 of BNSS is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains.

¶13

It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

¶14

Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted.

¶15

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Rajendra Prasad Sharma, is rejected .

¶16

However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

¶17

For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Nitin Verma

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. 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

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P.

Balveer Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Harish Yadav Alias Lallan Yadav vs State of U.P.

Momin Ali vs State of U.P.

Sujeet Tiwari Alias Laddu Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinit and Another vs State of U.P. and Another