Rahul Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1168 of 2024

Rahul Yadav And Another

Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Another	And	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Prashant Tiwari G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 15

¶6

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶7

1. The applicant has moved the present application praying for grant of anticipatory bail in case crime No. 85/2021, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur.

¶8

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State who has opposed the bail. He submits that charge sheet has been filed.

¶9

3. This Court while giving interim protection has passed the following order on 1.7.2024 :

¶10

"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 85/2021, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Allegedly the FIR has been lodged on 01.04.2021 against 92 persons, including the applicants, alleging that the accused persons secured appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in schools under U.P. Basic Siksha Parishad, on the basis of forge documents. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC is made out. The applicants have not received even a single penny during the course of employment. Coaccused Raj Kumar Yadav and Gaurav Yadav who were similarly situated and who had even joined have been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 21.12.2023 and 2.11.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail No.2824 of 23 and 3013 of 2023 respectively.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are not a previous convict; they have no

¶12

ABAIL No. 1168 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

criminal antecedents and they undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶15

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶16

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit. List on 16.07.2024.

¶17

Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that co-accused persons Raj Kumar Yadav and Gaurav Yadav have been granted anticipatory bail; the applicants are not a previous convict and having no criminal history and the applicants are undertaking to cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicants Rahul Yadav and Ajeet Kumar shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶19

The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation and they will not influence the witness. The accusedapplicants will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in compliance of order extracted above, the applicant has filed bonds and he has been enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶21

5. Considering the interim protection granted by this court vide order extracted above which has not been misused by the applicant, undertaking that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial, charge sheet has been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the interim protection granted earlier is liable to be and is hereby made absolute.

¶22

6. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶23

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶24

October 29, 2025 kkb/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munna @ Shoaib @ Mohammad Shoaib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Janki Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Hari Ram Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ashok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Farki Roka Magar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.