Disposed

Rahul Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2025NABAIL/6062/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS arising from an FIR for assault. Citing unknown nature of injuries, absence of supplementary medical report and no credible evidence linking the applicant, the court granted anticipatory bail confined to submission of police report.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in event of arrest till submission of police report on Rs. 50,000 personal bond with two sureties, with standard conditions; investigation to conclude within three months.

Rahul Rai vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139004

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6062 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shahi,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

C.D. Nos. 5 and 7 dated 28.5.2025 and statement of the doctor, produced by learned AGA, are taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material placed on record.

¶8

This application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.298 of 2025, under sections 331(6), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 109 B.N.S., P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with three named accused and 10 to 12 unknown persons is alleged to have assaulted three persons namely Atul Chaturvedi, Aditya Mishra and Gaurav Chaturvedi. As per the medical report, Atul Chaturvedi received five injuries. Injury nos. 2, 3 and 4 were simple in nature. Injury no.1 on the head was referred for NCCT head. Injury no.5 on the chest was referred for x-ray. Injured Aditya Mishra received three injuries. Injury nos. 1 and 3 were simple in nature. Injury no. 2 was referred for NCCT head. The other injured received four injuries. Injury nos. 2 and 4 were simple in nature. Injury no.1 on the head was referred for NCCT head. Injury no.3 on the left hand was referred for x- ray. No supplementary medical report with regard to the exact nature of injuries received by the three injured is available in the case diary. The nature of the injuries received by the three injured is not known. Further, at this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offences. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Investigation is pending and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for

¶11

anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Learned 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, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that as per the medical report, Atul Chaturvedi received five injuries; injury nos. 2, 3 and 4 were simple in nature, injury no.1 on the head was referred for NCCT head; injury no.5 on the chest was referred for x-ray, injured Aditya Mishra received three injuries; injury nos. 1 and 3 were simple in nature; injury no. 2 was referred for NCCT head, the other injured received four injuries; injury nos. 2 and 4 were simple in nature; injury no.1 on the head was referred for NCCT head; injury no.3 on the left hand was referred for x-ray, no supplementary medical report with regard to the injuries received by the three injured is available in the case diary, the nature of the injuries received by the three injured is not known, the fact that at this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offences, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant Rahul Rai 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 S.S.P./S.P. 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 :- 14.8.2025 S.S.

¶23

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

Rahul Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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