Upendra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Shri Abhijeet Verma along with Shri Satyam Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.134 of 2024 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 of IPC, Police Station Indargrah District Kannauj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶12

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and the offences are punishable with the maximum punishment of seven years. It is further submitted that the applicants were granted interim protection from arrest by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9302 of 2024 directing the authorities to follow the guidelines of Arnesh Kumar's case. It is also submitted that the applicants are having no criminal history. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, 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.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for

¶14

NABAIL No. 10013 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

anticipatory bail.

¶17

Applicants were granted interim protection from arrest by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9302 of 2024 directing the authorities to follow the guidelines of Arnesh Kumar's case. It is also submitted that the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and the applicants are having no criminal history.

¶18

It may be stated that in 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, 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.

¶19

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶20

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicants - Upendra and Pushpendra involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶22

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶23

(ii) The applicants 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶24

(iii) The applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶25

NABAIL No. 10013 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶28

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶29

December 16, 2025 RKM

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Upendra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra and Another 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

Similar cases

Deepak Singhal vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Yadav @ Monu Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Tigar vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Alias Raju and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopa Das vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Arif and Another vs State of U.P.