Allahabad High Court
Sunder Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137682
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6255 of 2025
Applicant :- Sunder Lal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pal Singh,Pradeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 284 of 2024, under Sections 333, 127(1), 115(2), 352, 76, 191(2), 191(3) of B.N.S., Police Station- Sungarhi, District- Pilibhit.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 09.08.2024. The injured was examined by the doctor on 19.08.2024 at 09:45 A.M. The first information report was lodged on 24.08.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the medical report, the injured sustained two injuries. The injury no. 1 was found simple in nature. The injury no. 2 was referred for x-ray examination. As per the x-ray report, no bony injury was seen. The doctor at the time of medical examination recorded that the duration of the injures were fresh. In view of the said report, it is contended that the alleged injuries cannot be attributed with the incident dated 09.08.2024. It is next contended that the wife of the co-accused, Puthulal has also lodged an F.I.R. against the informant and her family members on 21.01.2025 with regard to an incident dated 19.08.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 0023 of 2025 under Sections 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Sungarhi, District- Pilibhit. In counterblast to the said proceedings, the instant prosecution has been instituted. Further, at this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant had co-operated in the investigation. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. No custodial interrogation is required. Counsel for the applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. It is further to be noted that as per Section 35 of the B.N.S. also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.
7. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.
8. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would dis-entitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
9. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that the injured was examined by the doctor on 19.08.2024 at 09:45 A.M, the first information report was lodged on 24.08.2024, the doctor at the time of medical examination recorded that the duration of the injures were fresh, the wife of the co-accused, Puthulal also lodged an F.I.R. against the informant and her family members on 21.01.2025 with regard to an incident dated 19.08.2024. In view of the said facts coupled with the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
11. In the event of arrest, the applicant Sunder Lal be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;
(ii) 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;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.
12. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
13. The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.8.2025
Sachin Mishra
