Dismissed¶11

Lavkush Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2025NABAIL/1849/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.; neutral citation 2025:AHC:41600; order dated 21.3.2025) rejects the anticipatory bail application of Lavkush Prajapati in Case Crime No. 15 of 2025 under Sections 69, 61(2) BNS, P.S. Trilokpur, District Siddharth Nagar, holding a prima facie case made out; grants two-week no-coercive-action window with liberty to surrender and seek regular bail to be decided expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

What did the court decide?

Limited protection despite rejection: liberty to surrender within two weeks and apply for regular bail (to be decided expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922), with no coercive action for two weeks or until surrender, whichever is earlier. ¶11

Lavkush Prajapati Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Lavkush Prajapati is entitled to anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 15 of 2025 under Sections 69, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Trilokpur, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶7

Court's answer

From perusal of the contents of the first information report and other material evidence on record, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant; no case for interference by this Court is made out.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The present anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶11

Key takeaways

If the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.ratio¶12
For two weeks from the date of the order, or till the applicant surrenders before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under S. 482 BNSS in Case Crime No. 15 of 2025, Sections 69, 61(2) B.N.S., P.S. Trilokpur, District Siddharth Nagar — applicant pleaded false implication and delay in FIR; investigation ongoing with no charge-sheet — A.G.A. opposed, stating the medical examination report and victim statements recorded under Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. support the prosecution story — Court held that on perusal of the FIR and other material on record, prima facie offence was made out and no case for interference existed; anticipatory bail application rejected — applicant permitted to surrender within two weeks and apply for regular bail, to be decided expeditiously in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922 — no coercive action in the interregnum.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41600

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1849 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Lavkush Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Shankar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 15 of 2025, under Sections 69, 61(2) B.N.S., Police StationTrilokpur, District- Siddharth Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant first information report has been lodged only to pressurize the applicant. Instant first information report is delayed. Investigation is going on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

Per contra , learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant and submitted that applicant is a married person. Medical examination report as well as statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 & 183 B.N.S.S., are supporting the prosecution story, as such, prima facie , offence is made out against the applicant. It is not a case of false implication. Hence, applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of contents of first information report as well as other material evidence available on record, prima facie , offence is made out against the applicant, as such, no case for interference by this Court is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶12

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 .

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Aditya

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lavkush Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavkush Prajapati v. State of U.P.

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