Disposed¶15

Vitu and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2025ABAIL/6183/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Dr. Gautam Chowdhary J., order dated 9.7.2025; anticipatory bail S.438 CrPC refused; Case Crime No. 143 of 2022, P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad; offences under IPC ss.147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 188, 336, 427, 504 and s.7 Criminal Law Amendment Act; charge sheet filed; principles from Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 applied; liberty for regular bail per Satendra Kumar Antil (SLP (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided 07.10.2021); neutral citation 2025:AHC:108270.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; liberty reserved to the applicants to move for regular bail before the Court below, to be decided per the Satendra Kumar Antil guidelines. ¶15

Vitu and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108270

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6183 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vitu And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 143 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 188, 336, 427, 504, I.P.C., and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. It has further been submitted that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. It was also submitted that applicants undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that during the course of investigation, the Investigating officer has collected credible evidence against the applicants, which culminated in submission of charge sheet.

¶10

Perusal of the record shows that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation,

¶11

antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the prayer to grant anticipatory bail is refused.

¶14

However, it is open for the applicants to move regular bail before the concerned Court below. In case, such an application for bail is moved before the concerned Court below, then it is expected that the concerned Court below shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the necessary guidelines for grant of bail as laid down in the matter of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021), without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.7.2025

¶17

S.Ali

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vitu and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitu and Others v. State of U.P. 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