Allahabad High Court
Lav Kush And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143683
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6733 of 2025
Applicant :- Lav Kush And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Sharma,Vijay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicants and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material placed on record.
2. This application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No.455 of 2024, under sections 115(2), 151(2), 352, 110 B.N.S., P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri.
3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 25.11.2025. The first information report was lodged on 26/11/2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicants assaulted the father of the informant by lathi and danda and Arpit assaulted him with an axe. In the statement of the injured, specific role of causing head injury with an axe has been assigned to co-accused Arpit. As per medical report dated 30.11.2024 the injured received single injury on his head. It is contended that the role of the applicants are clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Arpit. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. It is next contended that co-accused Arpit has also lodged a first information report against the informant and others on 26.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 0456 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 190, 333, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. The aggressor is still to be ascertained. Investigation has been completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicants had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicants have been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for applicants 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 applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 B.N.S.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 applicants were arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicants had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicants and the applicants have been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offences 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 applicants 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 their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their 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, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that the delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case, in the statement of the injured, specific role of causing head injury with an axe has been assigned to co-accused Arpit, as per medical report dated 30.11.2024 the injured received single injury on his head, the role of the applicants are clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Arpit, vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants, the fact that the offences against the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail.
11. In the event of arrest, the applicants Lav Kush, Anju 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 applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;
(ii) the applicants 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 applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they has passport the same shall be deposited by them 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 :- 21.8.2025
S.S.
