Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Lko.

¶1

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 236 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pratul Gupta,Ayush Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶4

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

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0127 of 2025, under sections- 109(1), 125, 191(2), 351(2) and 352 BNS P.S.- Madiayon District - Lucknow.

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the role of firing is assigned to the co-accused Raj Kumar son of late Chabile though, it is of no injury case. He submits that in fact due to some village enmity, the present applicant has also been named, but no role has been assigned to him. He next added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is cooperating in the investigation proceedings and he undertakes that he will always remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when required and he undertakes that he will always remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when required. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶7

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State on the basis of instructions submits that the informant who is the victim himself has clarified the role very promptly and stated that it is the present applicant Sanjay Kumar who has opened fire over him and therefore, the present applicant is the main accused and as such, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Considering the submissions of counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of accused namely, Raj Kumar as the main role is assigned to him in the first information report. So far as the argument of counsel

¶9

for the State regarding the alteration of the role is concerned that also creates material doubt in the story of prosecution. Further the applicant has no previous criminal history and no role is attributed to him and it is of no injury case. Further, the applicant has undertaken that he will always remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Sanjay Kumar shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶12

(ii) that 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶13

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶14

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶15

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶16

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

¶17

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

List/put up this matter in third week of April, 2025 .

¶19

In the meantime, the State may file counter affidavit.

¶20

The applicant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 18.03.2025 at 02.00 P.M., failing which, the Investigation Officer shall inform this court while filing the Counter Affidavit that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceedings or not.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.3.2025/Mayank

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Bechu @ Raheesh vs Narcotics Control Bureau Govt. of India Thru. Ministry Home Affairs

Swapnil Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Muneer Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Rakesh Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Dulari vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another