Ram Karan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31308

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 357 of 2025

Applicant :- Ram Karan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

As per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 15.05.2025, opposite party no.2 has been served but has not put in appearance.

¶8

Counter affidavit on behalf of State filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Earlier vide order dated 23.04.2025, the interim anticipatory had been granted to the applicant, which is as follows:-

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for the applicant is granted liberty to implead the complainant as opposite party no.2 and to renumber the opposite parties during course of the day.

¶12

3. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.335 of 2024, under Sections 137(2) BNS, P.S. Kaisarganj, District Bahraich.

¶13

4. As per contents of FIR, the applicant and co-accused have allegedly enticed away the daughters of the informant.

¶14

5. It is submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the charges levelled against him with regard to alleged abduction of minor daughter of the informant. He has drawn attention to the statement of minor daughter recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS wherein she has not made any allegation against the applicant and she has also refused the medical examination.

¶15

6. It is further submitted that the previous criminal history of the applicant has already been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the

¶16

application.

¶17

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application but does not dispute the said facts.

¶18

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that allegation of abduction has been made against the applicant but the minor daughter of the informant in her statement under Section 180 and 183 BNSS has not corroborated the same. She has also refused the medical examination. The previous criminal history of the applicant has already been explained.

¶19

9. Let the accused-applicant Ram Karan as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶20

10. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶22

(ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶23

11. Issue notice to respondent no.2.

¶24

12. List this case on 16.05.2025 as fresh along with service report.

¶25

13. Objections may be filed in the meantime".

¶26

Learned A.G.A on the basis of counter affidavit submits that after cooperation by applicant, charge sheet has been filed.

¶27

There does not appear to be any situational difference from the time when the interim anticipatory bail had been granted to applicant.

¶28

In view thereof, the interim anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 23.04.2025 is hereby made absolute subject to following conditions.

¶29

(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

¶30

facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶37

The application stands disposed of.

¶38

Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Renu/-

¶39

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Karan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Karan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

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

Smt. Anarkali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Yusuf @ Yousuf Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others