LALARAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10319 of 2026

Lalaram And Another
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Shyamu Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A., Vikas Yadav

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard, the Learned counsel for the applicants, the Learned counsel for

the informant and the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the

record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the

applicants in Case Crime No.760 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352,

351(3), 109(1), 117(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S.- Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir

Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants

apprehend their arrest in the above-mentioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants

have been falsely implicated in the present case. There are cross versions

of the incident. Both sides have received injuries. Five persons from the

informant side have received injuries and four persons from the side of

the applicants have received injuries. Learned counsel has further

submitted that except the injuries sustained by Prince Pratap Singh, none

of the injuries were found to be grievous in nature or dangerous to life.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicants have no

criminal history. No charge sheet has been filed as yet. They will

cooperate in the investigation and trial, if any, and may be considered for
                                                    NABAIL No. 10319 of 2026
                                2


grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and the Learned A.G.A. have

opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the

informant has contended that the F.I.R. from the side of the applicants has

been lodged after ten days. None of the injured from the applicants' side

have received any injury which may be considered to be grievous in

nature or dangerous to life. Learned counsel has further submitted that

one injured, Prince Pratap Singh, has received a fracture of the nasal

bone, which is a grievous injury. Learned counsel for the informant,

however, could not point out any criminal antecedents of the applicants.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the

parties and perused the material brought on the record.

6. There are cross versions. Both the sides claim to have received injuries.

In the opinion of the Court, it would not be appropriate to hold which side

is the aggressor at the present stage. Except for one injury received by

Prince Pratap Singh, none of the injuries have been found to be grievous

in nature or dangerous to life. The injury received by Prince Pratap Singh

has an underlying nasal bone fracture which, although grievous in nature,

cannot be termed to be dangerous to life.


7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to

enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants

is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicants Lalaram and Vijay, they

shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail
                                                                                        NABAIL No. 10319 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    on furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the

                                    satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court

                                    concerned with the following conditions:-

                                    i. the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a

                                    police officer as and when required;

                                    ii. that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or

                                    to any police officer;

                                    iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous

                                    permission of the Court;

                                    iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution

                                    witness;

                                    10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned

                                    shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

                                    11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively

                                    for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be

                                    considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                                     (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Sachin




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad