Aditay Singh Paliwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

Aditay Singh Paliwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail not granted; the application was disposed of finally, with liberty to the applicant to apply for regular bail to be considered and decided expeditiously.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Aditay Singh Paliwal, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in Case Crime no.686 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 109, 352 and 351(2) BNS, P.S. Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow.

Court's answer

The Court found no occasion to entertain the applicant's anticipatory bail application, considering that the applicant alone was assigned the role of having opened fire upon the security guards (the role of other persons being distinct), that he was not cooperating in investigation and a non-bailable warrant had been issued against him, and that video footage of the incident in the case diary indicated his complicity.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was granted liberty to apply for regular bail, which may be considered and decided expeditiously.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 BNSS (No. 235 of 2025) by Aditay Singh Paliwal in Case Crime no.686 of 2024, Sections 191(2), 109, 352 and 351(2) BNS, P.S. Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow, arising from an alleged altercation with security guards of a local Mall and firing upon them. Applicant's counsel urged that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR (nominated subsequently on others' statements) and that three co-accused (Adarsh Rajesh Singh, Harshit Gupta, Roshan Kumar Singh) had been granted anticipatory bail; the State opposed, pointing to identification through CCTV footage, the applicant's role as the main accused who fired upon the guards, non-cooperation in investigation and issuance of a non-bailable warrant. The Court observed that the applicant's role was distinct from that of the co-accused, noted the non-bailable warrant and the video footage of the incident in the case diary indicating his complicity, found no occasion to entertain the anticipatory bail application, and disposed of it finally while granting liberty to apply for regular bail to be considered and decided expeditiously. Single Judge: Manish Mathur, J.; Order dated 9.4.2025; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:19981.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19981

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 235 of 2025

Applicant :- Aditay Singh Paliwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Pandey,Krishna Pratap Singh,Praveen Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1.

In view of order being passed notices to opposite party no.2 stands dispensed with.

First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.686 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 109, 352, and 351(2) BNS, P.S. Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow.

As per contents of F.I.R., applicant along with coaccused are said to have entered into an altercation with security guards of a local Mall and have also reportedly opened fire upon them.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that applicant is not named in F.I.R.; his name has been nominated subsequently on the basis of statements of other persons. It is submitted that three other co-accused, namely Adarsh Rajesh Singh; Harshit Gupta and Roshan Kumar Singh have been granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed

the anticipatory bail application with submission that applicant has been identified through CCTV footage and is the main accused of having opened fire upon security guards. It is submitted that applicant is not cooperating in investigation due to which non-bailable warrant has been issued against him.

Considering the submissions advanced and upon perusal of material on record, it appears that role of other persons is distinct from that of applicant since they have not been assigned any role of having opened fire upon security guards. There is also an aspect that applicant is not cooperating in investigation due to which non-bailable warrant has also been issued against him. As per rejection order, video footage of incident has been made a part of case diary indicating complicity of applicant. Considering above, this Court does not find any occasion to entertain anticipatory bail application of applicant. However, applicant shall have liberty to apply for regular bail which may be considered and decided expeditiously.

Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of finally subject to the observations made herein above.

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 kvg/-

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench