Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶12 (judgment para 7)

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted to applicant Sunil Kumar in relation to complaint/FIR No. 1582/2020 involving sections 363, 366, 376 (act-name corrupted in text) and section 3/4 of another enactment.

Court's answer

In deciding the anticipatory bail application, this court expressly invoked Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 and weighed the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant's role, and the circumstances of the case, as recited in judgment paras 5-6 (text partially corrupted).

¶¶10 (judgment para 5)

Ratio / Principle

Finding no justification to accept the plea — having regard to the gravity involved, the applicant's apparent failure to heed earlier advice/directions and to present himself before the concerned forum, and comparable past determinations — the court closed with the recurring formula '...आवेदन पत्र [गनरसर ≈ निरस्त?] किया जा(ता) रहा है', i.e., the anticipatory bail application was annulled/rejected (reconstructed from corrupted text; verify against original).

¶¶12 (judgment para 7)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 70), Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J., Order dated 14.7.2025 — CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 9042 of 2024 (Sunil Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:113360). The applicant was implicated via complaint/FIR No. 1582/2020 invoking sections 363, 366 and 376 (act-name abbreviated in corrupted Hindi text) along with section 3/4 of another enactment. Applicant-side counsel pleaded that improper 'directions' had misled the applicant and undertook his readiness to appear before and assist the concerned authorities whenever required; State counsel urged that a grave offence was involved and that earlier advice/directions had been disregarded. Expressly relying on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the court weighed the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant's role and the circumstances of the case, and — observing apparent non-appearance/non-compliance and citing analogous past determinations — concluded there was no justification to accept the plea and annulled (closing formula '...आवेदन पत्र [निरस्त?] किया जाता है') the anticipatory bail application. CAVEAT: substantial portions of the judgment body are OCR-corrupted Devanagari; the refusal finding is a reconstruction from recurring closing formulae and should be verified against the digitally signed original.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113360

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9042 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

वररममनदमणणणकपककररअगगमजममनरपमररनमपतआववदकससननल कसममर ककओरसवमस०अ०सस० 1582/2020 अनरर धमरम 363, 366, 376 भम०दस०गव० वधमरम 3/4 पमकससएकट, रमनमससगवललमइनस, सजलममसरमदमबमद ममअगगमजममनरपरमसककरनवहवरसपसरसरगकयमरयमहह।

आववदककवगवदमनअसधवकमएवसगवदमनअपरशमसककयअसधवकमकसससनम ररमपतमवलनकमपररशनलनगकयम।

आववदककवगवदमनअसधवकमनवरकरपसरसरगकयमगकआववदकगनदरषहह, उसवउपरसकधमरमओसममदवषवशरसरवपरवशमनकरनवककगनयरसवआसलपगकयम रयमहह, उसवआशसकमहहगकउसवउपरसकवगर मममलवममगररफरमरगकयमजम सकरमहह, जबगकउसकवगवरदकसईगवशवसननयसमकयनहहहह।यहमसपमससगरक रथययहभनहहगकआववदककसइसमममलमममअसरररमआदवशगमलमहहआहह ररमआववदकदमरममममलवकवसतपरनकरममसहयसरपदमनगकयमजमरहमहह। आववदकककओरसवयहभनआशवमसनगदयमरयमहहगकवहकमन ककपगकयम ममसहयसरकरनवकवसलएरहयमरहहऔरजबभनआवशयकरमहसरनवहईममनदमरन सवनयमयमलयकवसमकखसदकसउपलबधकरमएरमऔरउनसभनशररसकस सवनकमरकरनवकवसलएभनरहयमरहहजसनयमयमलयउसपरअसधरसगपरकरवरन।

गवदमनअपरशमसककयअसधवकमदमरमयहरकरपसरसरगकयमरयमगक अगभयसकदमरमकमरररअपरमधरसभनरपककगरकमहह।उनकमयहभनरकरहहगक अगभयसककसनयमयमलयदमरमअसरररमआदवशपदतहह, गकसरसउसकवदमरमउक आदवश ममवगर शररसकमपमलननहहगकयमजमरहमहह।गवचमररनयमयमलयकव आदवशफलककवअवलसकनसवदगश हसरहमहहगकअगभयसकसतपरनकरमम

गनयरगरसरययपरगनयगमररपसवउपणसररनहहहसरहमहहएवसलरमरमरकई गरसरययपरहमसजरनममफकसलयमरयमहह।इससलएअगभयसककसअगगमजममनर परमसकगकयवजमनवकमकसईऔगचतयपरनरनहहहसरहमहह।अरतअगभयसककम यहअगगमजममनरआववदनपतगनरसरगकयमजमय।

यहकहमजमसकरमहहगक Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 कवमममलवममममनननयउचचरम नयमयमलयनवममनमहहगकअगगमजममनरपरगनररयकररवसमयनयमयमलयकस आरसपककपककगरऔररसभनररम, अगभयसककमपनवरवकत, अगभयसककवनयमयसव भमरनवककससभमवनमपरगवचमरकरनमचमगहएररमनयमयमलयकसअगभयसककव गवरदउपलबधससपनररसममगनकमसमवधमननपनवरकमनलयमसकनकरनमचमगहएररम अगभयसकककसटनकभनगमकमकसभनधयमनममरखनमचमगहए।

वररममनमममलवममअगगमजममनरससबसधनगवसधकवसरमगपरससदमसरयकस धयमनममरखरवहहएऔरपककमरयकवगवदमनअसधवकमओसकवकरनय, आरसपयकक पककगर, आववदकककभनगमकमऔरमममलवकवसभनरथययएवसपररणसरगरययकस धयमनममरखरवहहए, चनसगकगवचमररनयमयमलयकवआदवशफलककवअवलसकनसव दगश हसरहमहहगकअगभयसकसतपरनकरममगनयरगरसरययपरगनयगमररप सवउपणसररनहहहसरहमहहएवसलरमरमरकईगरसरययपरहमसजरनममफकसलयम रयमहह, इससवयहपररलगकरहहगकआववदकनयमयमलयदमरमपदतअसरररम आदवशकमसमसगचरअनसपमलननहहगकयमजमरहमहह।इससलएमममलवकवरसरदसषपरगबनमकसईगवचमरवयकगकएयहअगगमजममनरआववदनपतसवनकमर गकएजमनवयसगयनहहहह, रदन स मरआववदककमअगगमजममनरआववदनपत असवनकमरगकयमजमरमहह।

रदन स मर, इसअगगमजममनरआववदनपतकसगनरसर गकयमजमरमहह। 8. इसवमदममयगदकसईअसरररमआदवशहस, रसवहसवरतसममपसमझमजमए।

कमयमरलयकसगनदरगशरगकयमजमरमहहगकइसआदवशककएकपगरसलगप अगवलमबससब स धरगवचमररनयमयमलयकवभवजनमससगनणशचरकरम। 10. आववदकगनयगमरजममनरपमररनमपतदमसखलकरनवहवरससवरसतहह। Order Date :- 14.7.2025 CP.sahani

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH SAHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad