Bhupendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92243

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2956 of 2025

Applicant :- Bhupendra Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Agrahari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Apprehending his arrest, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Bhupendra Singh Yadav in Case Crime No.116 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & Section 66D of I.T. Act at Police Station- Kotwali Shahar, District Mirzapur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that earlier protection was granted to the applicant by this Court till filing of police report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 5380 of 2023 vide order dated 22.5.2023 and the applicant has not misused the said liberty granted to him. It is also submitted that the applicant has been cooperative with the I.O. of this case during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. The applicant has not been declared proclaimed offender by the trial court. No process under sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. There is no chance of fleeing away of the applicant. Applicant has no criminal antecedents and as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail till end of the trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that during investigation the present applicant has been cooperative and no punitive process has been issued against him. Further, no custodial interrogation is now required.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶13

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶14

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial 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 :-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶19

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 28.5.2025 ss

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhupendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

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