Brijesh Kumar 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. - 262 of 2026

Brijesh Kumar

	Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Another	Home Lko. And		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Dharmendra Dwivedi	Kumar	Pandey, Prabhat
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 15

¶6

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Aviral Srivastava, Advocate, who filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant and the same is taken on record.

¶8

Notice on behalf of opposite party No. 2 has been received by learned counsel for the complainant during course of the day.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 79 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352(2), 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 324(4), 351(3) B.N.S and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kaudiya, District Gonda.

¶10

It is alleged in the prosecution case that the applicant, along with 14 other co-accused persons, with the common intention, armed with lathi, bhala, hand grenade and pistol, attacked on the complainant at his shop due to which the complainant's side suffered grievous injuries and damage to the property has been caused.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has no criminal history. Between the relative of the accused no. 2 i.e. Aradhana Tiwari and injured Neeraj Singh and Pankaj Singh, a civil suit is pending, the copy of the suit is annexed as Annexure No. 3, due to which,

¶12

NABAIL No. 262 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

this F.I.R has been registered falsely implicating 15 persons. It is submitted that the alleged persons namely Pankaj Kumar, J.P Singh, Rameshwar Pratap Singh as well as Vishal Singh have been shown to have received simple injuries. None of them have received any grievous injuries or fracture.

¶15

It is further submitted that co-accused Sher Bahadur has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1736 of 2025. The applicant seeks parity with the interim anticipatory bail of the said co-accused.

¶16

Another co-accused Shiv Shankar has also been given interim protection by this court vide order passed in Anticipatory Bail No. 1783 of 2025.

¶17

It is also submitted that the applicant has cooperated during the course of investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and have submitted that the investigation is going on and Section 311 BNS has been dropped, however, they could not dispute the fact that it is a case of parity.

¶19

Perused the record.

¶20

On due consideration to the interim anticipatory bail orders of the coaccused, named above and the facts that prima facie, none of the injured appear to have received any fatal injury or any fire arm injury, so also the general nature of allegations in the prosecution case, the fact that investigation is going on, the fact that applicant has no previous criminal history, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted interim anticipatory bail in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his continued cooperation in the investigation.

¶21

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant 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.

¶22

The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within twenty days

¶23

3

¶24

NABAIL No. 262 of 2026

¶25

from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶26

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶27

List this case on 03.04.2026.

¶28

Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant shall file counter affidavits in the meantime.

¶29

February 26, 2026 Vinay/-

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar 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

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

Tusar Mahapatra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.