Allahabad High Court
Dilip @ Dilip Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 16 June, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35596
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 660 of 2025
Applicant :- Dilip @ Dilip Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Zafar Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Avadhesh Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of complainant is taken on record.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is also taken on record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Avadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant, Shri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
4. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0053 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. & Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sidhouli, District- Sitapur.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case as he was named in the FIR. The investigation of the case in question was conducted and the applicant co-operated in the investigation. After investigation no evidence was found against the applicant, therefore, his name was dropped by the Investigating Officer and the charge sheet was submitted against co-accused Aadarsh Mishra @ Golu. After framing of charge, trial was proceeded against the aforesaid co-accused and after recording of statement of P.W.1 the applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the summon in pursuance of the order passed by the lower court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was never served upon the applicant and thereafter N.B.W. was issued against him. Then the applicant filed an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.7432 of 2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2025 with liberty to the applicant to file bail application before the court below by giving the benefit of judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 and Musheer Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 116. Thereafter on the basis of legal advice, the applicant preferred the present anticipatory bail application before this Court. He also submits that the applicant never misused the liberty given by the Investigating Officer, therefore, indulgence of this Court is required in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant, however, they do not dispute the fact that the applicant was named in the FIR but after investigation his name was dropped and he was summoned by the court below under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the F.I.R. as well as other relevant materials, it is evident that the applicant was named in the FIR and he fully co-operated in the investigation and when no evidence was found by the Investigating Officer, his name was dropped and the charge sheet was filed against co-accused Aadarsh Mishra and his trial was started. Thereafter the statement of P.W.1 was recorded then an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed and the applicant was summoned. As per the record available before this Court, the summon was never served on the applicant and thereafter without considering this fact that summon was not served upon the applicant, N.B.W. was issued and thereafter summoning order as well as N.B.W. was challenged before this Court in Applicatiion u/s 482 No.7432 of 2023 and the said application was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2025 by giving liberty to the applicant to apply for bail. Instead of applying regular bail, the applicant filed the present anticipatory bail application as it is well settled that once the N.B.W. is issued, anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.
8. In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file regular bail application before the court below along with interim bail application. In case the said application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, then the learned court below shall consider and decide the interim bail application first considering the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5442/2021).
Order Date :- 16.6.2025
Anand/-
