Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:152029
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7047 of 2025
Ajeet Kumar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Pankaj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2025, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 117(2) BNS, Police Station Sunnagarhi, District Kasganj.
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 26.02.2025 at 15:00 hrs. The first information report was lodged on 27.02.2025 at 19:50 hrs. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicants are alleged to have assaulted the husband of the informant-Ankit. As per the statement of the informant, in the alleged incident, apart from the husband of the informant, her brother-in-law Hariom also received injuries. As per the medical reports, the injured Hariom was examined by the doctor on 25.02.2025 at 4:55 p.m. and injured Ankit on 25.02.2025 at 4:45 p.m. The medical reports of both the injured records that they were brought to the hospital by CP 416 Ashok Kumar. It is contended that the alleged injuries examined by the doctor on 25.02.2025 cannot be attributed to the present incident dated 26.02.2025. Further, as per the medical report of Ankit, he received five injures. The injury nos. 1 and 3 were referred for X-ray examination, whereas other injuries were simple in nature. As per the x-ray report, no bony injury was seen and both the injuries were simple in nature. As per the medical report of injured Hariom, he received two injuries. The injury no.1 was simple in nature, whereas injury no.2 was referred for x-ray examination. As per the x-ray report, fracture of left ankle was seen. The said injury was grievous in nature but not dangerous to life. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been submitted. 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. Criminal history of the applicants have been explained in para 28 of the affidavit. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. 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 categories 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 ordinarily 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 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 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 disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has 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 applicants 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 applicants, in particular the fact that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 26.02.2025 at 15:00 hrs. The first information report was lodged on 27.02.2025 at 19:50 hrs.; as per the statement of the informant, in the alleged incident, apart from the husband of the informant, her brother-in-law Hariom also received injuries; as per the medical reports, the injured Hariom was examined by the doctor on 25.02.2025 at 4:55 p.m. and injured Ankit on 25.02.2025 at 4:45 p.m.; as per the medical report of Ankit, he received five injures; the injury nos. 1 and 3 were referred for X-ray examination, whereas other injuries were simple in nature; as per the x-ray report, no bony injury was seen and both the injuries were simple in nature; as per the medical report of injured Hariom, he received two injuries; the injury no.1 was simple in nature, whereas injury no.2 was referred for x-ray examination; as per the x-ray report, fracture of left ankle was seen; the said injury was grievous in nature but not dangerous to life; investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been submitted, the applicants had co-operated in the investigation, no custodial interrogation is required, and 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), 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 Ajeet Kumar, Premlata and Ajay @ Ajay Pratap Singh Solanki involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 have 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.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
August 29, 2025
Lbm/-
