Satyendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 173 of 2025

Applicant :- Satyendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dwijendra Mishra,Rajneesh Mishra,Vishva Deep Pandey,Vivek Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit appended therewith a copy of the certified copy of the FIR is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been moved by the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 79 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. In the F.I.R. 136 persons have been named including the applicant and allegations have been made that while applying for his registration the applicant has enclosed forged mark-sheet which after verification was not authenticated by the college by which it was shown to have been issued.

¶9

It is vehemently submitted that without scrutinizing the relevant documents, first information report of this case has been lodged and it appears that due to some misunderstanding the name of the applicant has been dragged into this case. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation name of 71 persons have also been further revealed.

¶10

It is next submitted that for the last three years the investigation of the case is going on and the applicant is cooperating in the investigation. However, the same is at the concluding stage and the investigating officer by misinterpreting Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. is making all out efforts to apprehend/arrest of the applicant. Applicant is not having any criminal history and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when his presence would be required. Identically

¶11

situated co-accused, namely, Ashish Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 4.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 163 of 2025 and thus, the applicant is seeking parity of the same.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that having regard to the manner in which the offence has been committed, the applicant is not entitled for any protection.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against 136 accused persons. Allegations against them are identical i.e. of submitting forged documents and 71 more persons are shown to have been now added during the course of investigation and also keeping in view the fact that the investigation of this case is pending for the last three years, a case of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicant. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Jafar Ali, Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya, Mohd. Nadeem Khan, Abhishek Kumar Agarwal, Ankit Kumar Agarwal,Vikram Singh and Raghvendra Singh have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶14

Thus, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021 , protection from arrest for limited period of time i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the applicant.

¶15

In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Satyendra Yadav is finally disposed of with a direction that till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the event of arrest of the applicant in the above-mentioned case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(2) The applicant 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;

¶18

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.

¶19

In case of default of any condition the investigating officer may approach this Court for cancellation/modification of this order.

¶20

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Shravan

¶22

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

Satyendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. 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

Imran Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Civil Secretariat Lko.

Brijendra Kumar Alias Vijendra Kumar Srivastava vs State O Fu.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Yadav @ Rajesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Shiva Arya @ Raja vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Home Secy. Lko. and 3 Others