Dismissed¶10

Kailash Nath Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC8 May 2025ABAIL/507/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail dismissed; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. proceedings implemented; non-bailable warrant; non-cooperation in investigation; Sections 406 & 420 IPC; Case Crime No.0227 of 2023; P.S. Chhapia, District Gonda; earlier anticipatory bail rejected by Sessions Judge; liberty for regular bail per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825; Kailash Nath Yadav; State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; order dated 8.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; liberty granted to the applicant to apply for regular bail before the Court concerned, which may be considered and decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, in case the same is applicable. ¶10

Kailash Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the applicant Kailash Nath Yadav in Case Crime No.0227 of 2023 under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, P.S. Chhapia, District Gonda.

¶5

Court's answer

From the submissions and perusal of the first anticipatory bail rejection order passed by the Sessions Judge, it is evident that the applicant has not co-operated in the investigation, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant and process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C., despite the applicant's plea that he was unaware of such proceedings.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and the nature of allegations in the FIR, no good ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail; however, liberty is granted to the applicant to apply for regular bail before the Court concerned, to be considered and decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, in case applicable.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. refused (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; order dated 8.5.2025): applicant sought pre-arrest bail in Case Crime No.0227 of 2023, Sections 406 & 420 IPC, P.S. Chhapia, District Gonda. The State opposed, pointing out that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation, resulting in a non-bailable warrant and implementation of proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C.; his earlier anticipatory bail application had been rejected by the Sessions Judge. Holding that no good ground for indulgence existed, the Court dismissed the application but granted liberty to apply for regular bail, to be considered in the light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, if applicable.

¶1

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 507 of 2025 Applicant :- Kailash Nath Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶2

Counsel for Applicant :- Harshit Singh,Garima Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.

¶5

This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0227 of 2023 under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, P.S. Chhapia, District Gonda.

¶6

At the very outset, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant has not co-operated in the investigation due to which not only non-bailable warrant but proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. were also initiated and have already been implemented but the applicant is avoiding his presence.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant, on the contrary, submits that who was unaware of any such proceeding against him.

¶8

Considering submissions advanced and also from a perusal of first anticipatory bail rejection order passed by Sessions Judge, it is evident that applicant has not co-operated in the investigation leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant and process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Considering aforesaid facts as well as the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to apply for regular bail before the Court concerned which may be considered and decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 in case the same is applicable .

¶10

In view of aforesaid, the application stands dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Satish

¶12

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

Kailash Nath Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Nath Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Sumit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pankaj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Amar Bahadur @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shoeb @ Roofi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.