Mohd. Imran @ Lallu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2665 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohd. Imran @ Lallu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 29 July, 2025

Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar

Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43829
 
Court No. - 14
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 830 of 2025
 
Applicant :- Mohd. Imran @ Lallu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Misra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
 

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.0359 /2023, under Sections 307, 323, 342, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kaudiya, District Gonda.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had earlier filed an anticipatory bail application, which was allowed, granting him protection until submission of the police report. After the filing of the charge sheet, the applicant has now approached this Court by way of the present anticipatory bail application. A copy of the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 276 of 2024 is on record. It is further submitted that the applicant fully cooperated during the investigation and undertakes to extend cooperation during the trial.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

Perused the record.

The operative portion of the order dated 05.03.2024 is extracted below:

"3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The FIR of this case has been lodged on 12.11.2023 at 2.53 p.m. by the wife of the injured Nankey and allegations have been levelled therein that by the assault given by the applicant and other accused persons her husband Nanke had sustained grievous / life threatening injuries.

4. Highlighting the contents of the FIR, wherein the occurrence is shown to have occurred on 11.11.2023 at 7.00 p.m. and also the medical report/papers of the injured Nanke of Autonomous State Medical College Babu Ishwar Sharan Hospital Gonda (U.P.), a copy of which has been placed at page no. 37 of the paper book, it is submitted that it has been mentioned in this document that the injured Nanke was admitted in the aforesaid hospital at 10.00 a.m. on 12.11.2023 and an endorsement has been made in this document that he has sustained injury on his own and in the column with regard to the history of illness it is shown in this document that the injuries have been sustained as a result of fall from height, while in the statement of the doctor Ramesh Pandey recorded by the Investigating Officer there is no mention of the facts with regard to the above mentioned endorsement.

5. While drawing attention of this court towards the counter affidavit filed by the State it is submitted that the State, in its counter affidavit, though has enclosed statement of the doctor, who had examined the injured at the time of his admission in the autonomous state medical college, Gonda, however, there is no explanation with regard to the endorsements made at the time of admission of the injured pertaining to the fact that the injuries have been caused to him on his own as mentioned in the history column. It is also submitted that the endorsement has also been made that the injuries have been sustained by injured from fall from height. It is also submitted that the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 15.02.2024 passed by this court, subject to certain conditions and the applicant has complied those conditions in letter & spirit and has cooperated in the investigation. It is also submitted that the applicant is not having any previous criminal antecedents to his credit and he will remain present before the investigation officer as and when his presence would be required. There is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail, the applicant flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant is accused of causing life-threatening injuries to the injured and benefit if any discrepancy occurring in the medical reports of the injured may not be given to the applicant and co-accused persons in presence of the eye-witnesses, who have seen the occurrence.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the allegations of mar-peet have been levelled against the applicant and co-accused persons by the informant as well as various eye-witnesses. Injured-Nanke is shown to have been admitted at first in the autonomous state medical college, Gonda on 12.11.2023 at 10 a.m. and it is shown in the admission-sheet/medical report that he was brought by his uncle and the LTI of one Parashuram is also affixed thereon. It is endorsed in the medical report that the injured has sustained injuries on his own and also that he is not intending to initiate any legal proceeding against anyone and in the history column it is mentioned that the injuries have been sustained as a result of fall from height.

8. While granting interim protection to the applicant on 15.02.2024, this Court had directed that the endorsements mentioned above would also be explained, however, no explanation has been given and, it appears that these endorsements, which admittedly contradicts the case of the prosecution, are to be investigated in depth so that the real incident may emerge on surface. It appears to be an admitted case that after grant of interim protection the conditions, under which the liberty of the applicant was protected, have not been violated. Thus, having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the above-mentioned endorsements emerging in the medico-legal reports of injured- Nanke, the liberty of the applicant may be protected till submission of police report under section 173 (2) CrPC, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021.

9. In result, this anticipatory bail application, moved on behalf of the applicant- Mohd. Imran alias Lallu is finally disposed of in terms that till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the event of arrest of the applicant by the S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned, Investigating Officer or under any process of the Court, he shall be released on anticipatory bail forthwith in the above noted case on his executing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of SHO/ Investigating Officer/, subject to the following conditions:-"

It is not disputed by the State that the applicant has not violated the conditions of the interim protection granted by the above order. Now that the charge sheet has been filed, there appears to be no justifiable reason to deny anticipatory bail solely on that ground.

Having due regard to the earlier order dated 05.03.2024, the applicant?s cooperation during investigation, the absence of any misuse of liberty, and his undertaking to cooperate with the trial and in light of the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail, subject to his continued cooperation in the trial.

In view of the above, the accused-applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of twenty days from today. Upon his surrender, the trial court shall release him on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence;

(ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court;

(iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness;

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance;

(v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant;

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.

Order Date :- 29.7.2025

R.C.