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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 912 of 2025

Shahdab

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Avinash Singh Vishen, Nikhil Mishra

¶5

Court No. - 12

¶6

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.135 of 2025, under Section 108 of BNS at P.S. Ashiyana District Lucknow.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶9

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.07.2025 while granting interim protection to the applicant has passed the following order:-

¶10

"1. Heard Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the Stae and Sri Avinash Singh Vishen, Advocate who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the infomant/complainant.

¶11

2. The present applicant is apprehending his arrest is case crime no.135 of 2025, under Sections 108 of BNS at P.S. Ashiyana District Lucknow.

¶12

3. Sri Amar Singh has stated that the present applicant is a young boy of 19 years and has been falsely implicated in the present matter.

¶13

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report, wherein, the date of incident is indicated as 09.04.2025, but the first information report has been launched on 25.04.2025, i.e., after a delay of

¶14

NABAIL No. 912 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

about 16 days and such delay has not been explained. Sri Amar Singh has stated that the required exercise of postmortem has been undertaken on 10th April 2025, where the cause of death has been shown as as Asphyxia due to ante-morten hanging, but no prompt First Information Report has been lodged after 10th April 2025. Initial prosecution story says that the mother of the present applicant and his brother had beaten the victim and have strangulated him, but the postmortem report does not support the aforesaid version inasmuch as if such story is believed, the cause of death should be strangulation. Sri Singh has further submitted that initially the First Information Report was lodged under Section 103(1) of BNS, but during the investigation and collecting some evidences and recording the statement of some persons, this sections has been converted into 108 BNS. Ihe investigation is going on Sri Singh has stated that if the case has been converted under section 108 BNS, then there must be some positive or overt act on the part of the applicant, to instigate or abatement to commit suicide, but such ingredients are missing.

¶17

5. Sri Vishen, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that actually this is a case of murder and the First Information Report has rightly been lodged under section 103(1) of BNS, but so as to dilute the allegation of murder, the Investigating Officer has converted the section from 103(1) to 108 BNS for the reason best known to him. For that the appropriate application would be filed by the informant before the appropriate court of law/authority.

¶18

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but he could not controvert the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the present applicant.

¶19

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of the interim anticipatory bail, if granted.

¶20

8. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks by both the opposite parties.

¶21

9. List this case in the week commencing 1st September, 2025, within top 10 cases.

¶22

10. Having considered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the

¶23

NABAIL No. 912 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

parties and having perused the material available on the record; the fact that the investigation is going on against the present applicant and the undertaking that he shall not misuse the interim protection of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation properly, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of the investigation or filing of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in view of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶26

11. Therefore, in the meantime, it is directed that in the event of arrest the applicant (Shahdab) shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number, till completion of investigation or filing of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on his furnishing a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) that the present applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 2nd August 2025 to cooperate in the investigation and shall further corporate in the investigation till completion of investigation and filing of police report, failing which this interim anticipatory bail order may be withdrawn on the next date.

¶28

(ii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶29

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;

¶30

(iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial;

¶31

(v) that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer/ Trial Court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶32

(vi) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶33

(vii) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned

¶34

NABAIL No. 912 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. "

¶37

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation in the F.I.R. are baseless and applicant has been falsely implicated. He submits that in compliance of the order dated 29.07.2025, applicant has filed the bail bonds and has been released on interim anticipatory bail. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial, if needed. Applicant has not misused the liberty of interim protection granted by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶38

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant submitting that the investigation is going on.

¶39

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation as also the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2025 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶40

The application stands allowed.

¶41

September 11, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶42

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶43

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shahdab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

Shahdab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

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

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Akash Rathour vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Munesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Pucchi Alias Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others