Ompal vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117882

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4219 of 2025

Applicant :- Ompal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and Mohd. Danish, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Saif Ali Khan, learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

¶7

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court. The order is quoted herein below:

¶8

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

¶9

2. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 31347 of 2022 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Najibabad, District- Bijnor.

¶10

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the contents of the complaint, the applicant was alleged to have fired at the complainant. In the alleged incident, no person has received any injury. No medical report has been annexed along with the complaint. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purposes of harassment. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

4. Matter requires consideration.

¶12

5. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early

¶13

date.

¶14

6. Opposite parties are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

¶15

7. Place this case on 18.07.2025 in the additional cause list.

¶16

8. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest the applicantOmpal in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 concerned court.

¶20

9. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same."

¶21

Despite time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the order dated 28.05.2025 the applicant is appearing before the court concerned on each and every date fixed and is contesting the proceedings. The applicant has not violated any conditions nor has misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶24

Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, for the reasons contained in the interim order dated 28.05.2025 and, in particular, the fact that in the alleged incident no person has received any

¶25

injury and the applicant is appearing before the trial court on the dates fixed, and also the fact that no adverse material has been produced by the learned AGA or learned counsel for the informant, which may warrant any modification in the earlier order, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶26

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Ompal involved in Complaint Case No. 31347 of 2022, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor , be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶28

(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;

¶29

(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 concerned court.

¶30

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶31

The application stands disposed of.

¶32

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 SKT/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ompal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

Ompal 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

Dori Lal vs State of U.P. and Another

Angad Saini vs State of U.P. and Another

Faeem and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Nagmati and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyaram vs State of U.P.