Mevalal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77049

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2650 of 2025

Applicant :- Mevalal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 28 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 115(2), 117(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Deoria.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. With regard to the same incident, the co-accused Arvind Kumar had also lodged an F.I.R. on 06.01.2025 against the informant and her family members registered as Case Crime No. 0022 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police StationKotwali, District- Deoria. In the alleged incident, the co-accused Arvind Kumar has also received injuries. In the alleged incident, from the side of the informant, nine persons received injuries. Six persons were examined by the doctor on 07.01.2025 and 08.01.2025 respectively, the injured, Darpani was examined on 16.01.2025 and the injured, Arjun was examined on 21.01.2025. The delay in medical examination of injured, Darpani and Arjun has not been explained. Further, all the injured from the side of the informant received injuries which were simple in nature except the injury no. 2 of the injured, Darpani which was a fracture of left forearm. It is contended that although, the injury no. 2 of the injured, Darpani was grievous in nature but not dangerous to life. The nature of injuries shows that there was no intent to murder. Further, in the first information report, six accused persons including the applicant and few unknown persons are nominated. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. At this stage, there

¶10

is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit. The investigation is still pending. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶13

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that with regard to the same incident, the coaccused Arvind Kumar had also lodged an F.I.R. on 06.01.2025 against the informant and her family members, the fact that the delay in medical examination of injured, Darpani and Arjun has not been explained, the fact that a vague role has been assigned to the applicant, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Mevalal be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193 (3) B.N.S.S., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the Police Commissioner concerned.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶20

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

The application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 S.S.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mevalal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mevalal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases