Raju Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1144 of 2025

Raju Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raghvendra Singh

¶7

Court No. - 23

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 has passed the following order granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant:-

¶11

" 1.The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.0523 of 2016 under section 364 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Sitapur.

¶12

2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the the victim who has filed vakalatnama which is taken on record, and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶13

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's name has been dragged due to ongoing matrimonial dispute pending between the co-accused Kalpana and her husband Pranay Krishna who is brother of the complainant/respondent No.2. The co-accused Kalpana has filed a first information report against her husband and his family members which is pending since 2012. Apart from that, proceedings under section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance were also initiated before the Family court. Against the order of maintenance dated 18.4.2016, a criminal revision was filed by the co-accused Kalpana, bearing Crl. Revision No.584 of 2016 which was allowed on 24.3.2022 enhancing the maintenance amount. In this backdrop, the applicant has been made an accused by virtue of the present information report without there being any corroborative material.

¶14

A coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 9.4.2024 passed in anticipatory Bail No.771 of 2024

¶15

has granted interim anticipatory bail to the co-accused Kalpana. It is submitted that only suspicion is

¶16

ABAIL No. 1144 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

raised on the applicant in the prosecution case. The real dispute is between Kalpana and respondent No.2.

¶19

4.Learned Addl. Government Advocate and complainant's counsel have opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel and submitted that the applicant is absconding. Non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant as well as proceedings under section 82 CrPc have been initiated, to which it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that there is no publication of proclamation issued under section 82(1) of CrPC.

¶20

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. could not show from the record that any publication was made.

¶21

5.List on 12.11.2025. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. who has stated that the charge sheet has already been filed in the year 2016 shall file objections/counter affidavit.

¶22

6.Considering the above aspects of the matter, order dated 9.4.2024 (supra) passed in favour of the coaccused Kalpana, role assigned to the applicant, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he will cooperate in the trial, perusal of the record, as also the judgment in Musheer Alam versus State of U.P. and another Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.1808 of 2024 passed by Supreme Court and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

8.In view of the above, it is provided that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court within 20 days from today. On such surrender, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. 9.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses. Any other condition which the trial court may deem fit and proper may also be imposed.

¶24

In case of default, it would be open for the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. "

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been released on interim anticipatory bail after filing of the personal bonds and two sureties in compliance of the aforesaid order. He has duly cooperated in the investigation. Charge-sheet in the case has already been filed. He has not misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted by the Court. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial and in case, he is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of same.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶27

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering

¶28

ABAIL No. 1144 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

the nature of accusation so also the fact that charge-sheet in the case has already been filed, the applicant has not misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted by the Court coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the trial, the interim anticipatory bail granted by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶31

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 14.10.2025, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶33

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶34

February 26, 2026

¶35

Shravan

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Ekhlak @ Mo Ekhlak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Pramod Kumar Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmendra Kumar @ Umesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pintoo Kumar @ Pintu Dangi vs Union of India Thru. Interlligence Officer Lko

Reetu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Brijesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another