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

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1-State and perused the record.

¶14

2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

¶15

3. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 26 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 352, 351(3), 333, 288, 324(4), 223(B), 331(6) BNS, Police Station Shriduttganj, District Balrampur.

¶16

4. As per contents of First Information Report, incident is said to have taken place on 20.03.2025 at about 11.00 p.m. when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked the informant and his family members and intimidated them. Allegation of firing has also been levelled.

¶17

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated for allegations levelled against him; only on account of previous enmity. It is submitted that only general allegations have been levelled without any specific role assigned to the applicant for opening fire. It is submitted that even otherwise there is no injury either be informant or his family members. Applicant has seven cases criminal history which has been explained and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation which is still ongoing.

¶18

NABAIL No. 728 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail application and submits that applicant is not cooperating in the investigation.

¶21

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that only general role has been assigned to the applicant in having participated in the attack. There does not appear to the any specific role assigned to the the applicant of firing. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and applicant has seven cases criminal history which has been explained. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS.

¶22

8. List this case in the third week of August, 2025, as fresh, along with service report.

¶23

9. Objections may be filed in the meantime.

¶24

10. In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in the event of arrest, applicant-Prince Shukla shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶25

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶26

(ii) That the accused-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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and

¶27

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶28

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

¶29

11. Applicant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 08.07.2025 at 02.00 p.m.

¶30

12. Learned AGA shall obtain instructions by next date of listing regarding cooperation by the applicant in the investigation."

¶31

There is no opposite party No.2 impleaded in the instant application and it appears that notice to the opposite party No.2 has been issued erroneously.

¶32

NABAIL No. 728 of 2025

¶33

3

¶34

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the materials collected during the investigation, including statement of the applicant, which shows that the applicant is co-operating with the investigation.

¶35

The learned A.G.A. does not allege violation of any condition of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶36

Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is nothing which may persuade this Court from taking a different view than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶37

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 26.06.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶38

September 17, 2025 S. Shivhare

¶39

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prince Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Ankur Srivastava @ Ankur Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Annexe Bhawan Lko. and Another

Hamesh @ Ram Sewak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kameshwar Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ahsab Ahmad @ Aisab Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Shri Prakash Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Kailash Tiwari @ Kailash Nath Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another