Hareram vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132435

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6032 of 2025

Applicant :- Hareram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 453 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 333, 352, 351(2), 324(4) B.N.S., Police Station Vishunpura, District Kushinagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, fifteen named accused including the applicant are alleged to have assaulted five persons namely Reema Devi, Santosh Patel, Pramod Patel, Vinod Patel and the informantVishvasi Devi. As per the medical report, the injured Reema Devi, Santosh Patel and Pramod Patel received injuries which were simple in nature. The injured Vinod Patel received five injuries. The injury nos. 2 to 5 were simple in nature whereas the injury no. 1 was referred for x-ray examination. As per the supplementary medical report, fracture was seen in upper border of right scapula. It is contended that the said injury was although grievous in nature but not dangerous to life. Insofar as, the informant-Vishvasi Devi is concerned, she received six injuries. Injury no. 1 and 3 were referred for x-ray examination. As per the supplementary medical report, comminuted displaced fracture of left zygomatic arch and roof and lateral wall of left orbit. The other injuries were simple in nature. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused grievous injuries to Vinod Patel and the informant-Vishvasi Devi. Identically placed co-accused Markandey has been granted anticipatory bail, till submission of

¶9

police report, by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 6112 of 2025. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is still pending. 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant, the applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused grievous injuries to Vinod Patel and the informant-Vishvasi Devi, identically placed co-accused Markandey has been granted anticipatory bail, till submission of police report, by this Court; 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.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Hareram 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(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 S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Lbm/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hareram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chandra vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Nishi Singh Aniya vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Hoteram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another