Allowed¶20

Gaidalal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2025NABAIL/2110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J., 09-10-2025 — NABAIL No. 2110 of 2025 (S. 482 BNSS anticipatory bail) — Gaidalal v. State of U.P. — caste certificate fraud allegation, Ss. 420/467/468/471 IPC, Case Crime No. 1118 of 2007, P.S. Civil Lines, Budaun — pending S. 482 Cr.P.C. application with interim protection since 15.06.2010 — NBWs after Asian Resurfacing — Mhetre factors applied — anticipatory bail allowed on bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in Case Crime No. 1118 of 2007: upon arrest, applicant Gaidalal to be released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (i)–(iv); prosecution at liberty to move for cancellation in default of any condition. ¶20

Gaidalal vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Gaidalal, facing Case Crime No. 1118 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC (allegedly submitting a caste certificate despite not belonging to the Scheduled Caste community), is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

¶19

Court's answer

Considering the settled principles regarding anticipatory bail, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of accusation, the role of the applicant and all attending facts and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In the event of arrest in the aforesaid case crime, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) not tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial Court on fixed dates unless exempted; (ii) no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts to dissuade disclosure to the Court or police; (iii) co-operation during trial and non-misuse of liberty of bail; and (iv) not leaving India without prior permission of the Court concerned; in default, the prosecution may seek cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — S. 482 BNSS — Applicant alleged in FIR (Case Crime No. 1118 of 2007, P.S. Civil Lines, District Budaun) to have submitted a caste certificate though not belonging to the Scheduled Caste community; offence under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC — Certificate stated to have been issued by competent authority and not cancelled; applicant claims adoption by a person of the Scheduled Caste community — Applicant already protected by interim order dated 15.6.2010 in pending S. 482 Cr.P.C. application No. 16511 of 2010 — After Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI, trial court issued summons and non-bailable warrants, creating apprehension of arrest — Relying on the principles in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 (nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents, possibility of flight, entire material, exact role), and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court held a case for anticipatory bail was made out — Application allowed: release on arrest on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, with conditions against tampering, inducement, misuse of liberty and leaving India without permission; prosecution free to seek cancellation on breach.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2110 of 2025

Gaidalal

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sunil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 72

¶8

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.D. Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 1118 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Budaun with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶11

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that allegation in the FIR is that the applicant submitted a caste certificate even though he does not belong to Scheduled Caste community. It is submitted that the said caste certificate has been issued by competent authority and the same has not been cancelled so far. It was also submitted that applicant was adopted by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community on which basis, the said caste certificate has been issued in his favour. It is submitted that applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. No. 16511 of 2010 in which he was granted interim protection vide order dated 15.6.2010. It was also submitted that the aforesaid application is still pending before this Court. It is further submitted that on the basis of the judgment of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the trial court issued summons, thereafter, non bailable warrants against the applicant, therefore, he is apprehending his arrest. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the

¶12

NABAIL No. 2110 of 2025

¶13

¶14

liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant should file an application in the proceedings u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. already filed by him which is still pending before this Court.

¶16

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

As per the FIR, the allegation against the applicant is that he submitted a caste certificate even though he does not belong to Scheduled Caste community. It is submitted that the said caste certificate has been issued by competent authority and the same has not been cancelled so far. The applicant moved this Court earlier by filing application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. in which, he was granted interim protection and the said application is still pending. In the meantime, following the judgment of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, trial court issued non bailable arrant against the applicant.

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

¶19

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of 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 merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶20

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant Gaidalal involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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

NABAIL No. 2110 of 2025

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(iv) The applicant 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 applicant.

¶29

October 9, 2025

¶30

Madhurima

¶31

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaidalal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaidalal 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

Manjoor Ali and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajneesh Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P.

Aahad @ Maujjam Ali vs State of U.P.

Smt Eram and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Furqan Ali vs State of Up and Another

Vishal vs State of U.P. and Another