Nankau @ Babu Lal @ Devi Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to FIR/Crime No.1373 of 2017, under Section- 376D, 323, 506 IPC and 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.-Ramgaon, District- Bahraich.

¶13

It is stated that story of the prosecution is complete false and concocted and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶14

It is further stated that co-accused Ram Kumar vide order dated 09.10.2025, this Court had protected the interest of the applicant. The order dated 09.10.2025, referred, reads as under:-

¶15

"3. The counsel for the applicant argues that initially the FIR was lodged being Case Crime No.0954 of 2017 under sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and subsequently for the same incident, through an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., another FIR was lodged after arrest being case crime no.1373 of 2017 in which section 376-D IPC was also alleged. It is stated that after investigation, final report was filed finding that no case is made out against the applicant under section 376-D IPC. Against the said final report, a protest petition was filed in which the applicant was summoned by the trial court.

¶16

4. It is argued that as the applicant had not been granted bail under section 376-D, he is anticipating his arrest. 5. Learned AGA opposes the bail application.

¶17

6. Considering the fact that both the incident in the two FIRs are common and the final report has already been filed in favour of the applicant, prima-facie a case for grant of interim bail is made out.

¶18

7. Thus, it is directed that in the event of arrest under section 376-D in case crime no.1373 of 2017, the applicant Ram Kumar be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid FIR in question and consequent to the summoning order passed on 14.12.2018, on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each separately to the satisfaction of Court below concerned with the following conditions:"

¶19

It is further stated that the interim bail granted to the co-accused Ram Kumar earlier, was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025. As such the applicant is also entitled for the similar relief. The order dated 20.11.2025, referred, reads as under:-

¶20

"1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶21

ABAIL No. 130 of 2026

¶22

2

¶23

2. The applicant was enlarged on interim bail on 09.10.2025 and there is no material to demonstrate that the applicant has misused the liberty.

¶24

3. Considering the aforesaid fact that the interim bail granted vide order dated 09.10.2025 is confirmed and the applicant, namely, Ram Kumar is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial on the same terms and conditions.

¶25

4. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. "

¶26

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶27

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant- Nankau alias Babu Lal alias Devi Prasad till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

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

¶29

(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 him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶30

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

¶31

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶32

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶33

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶34

February 11, 2026

¶35

Jyoti/-

¶36

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nankau @ Babu Lal @ Devi Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nankau @ Babu Lal @ Devi Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh @ Umesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shubham Pal vs Shri Rahul Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari Dist. Raebareli

Mr. X (Juvenile) Thru. Guardian vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Nandu @ Nand Kishore Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ayesha @ Nazma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Harish Chandra Yadav vs Manoj Singh, Up Ziladhikari / Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Sadar Lko.