Shakir Ali @ Baure Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25379

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 214 of 2025

Applicant :- Shakir Ali @ Baure Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit dated 16.04.2025 filed today on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.

¶8

As per report dated 12.03.2025, the complainant has been served personally but has not put an appearance.

¶9

This anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 288 of 2024, under Sections 74, 352, 351(3), 324(2), 131 and 333 of BNS and 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Visheshwarganj, District Bahraich.

¶10

As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 14/15th October, 2024 at about 2 P.M. when the applicant is said to have molested the daughter of the informant/ complainant.

¶11

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS do not corroborate the allegations levelled against the applicant. It is submitted that the medical report also does not corroborate the allegation levelled against the applicant. It is also submitted that the previous criminal history of three cases of the applicant has been explained in para 19 of the rejoinder affidavit.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that there is only a minor inconsistency in the statement of victim with the allegations levelled in the FIR.

¶13

It is, however, admitted that previous criminal history of three cases has been explained.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS do not corroborate the allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR. Charge sheet has been filed with due cooperation of the applicant. Previous criminal history of the present applicant has been explained. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS.

¶15

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Shakir Ali @ Baure shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on his/her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(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;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶22

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail

¶23

to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

The application stands allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shakir Ali @ Baure v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakir Ali @ Baure v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Kaushal Kishor @ Sachin Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sagheer Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Kewal @ Ram Kewal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Jagannu @ Jagnu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Lale @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Naushad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Anothers