Ankit Rastogi and Another Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3906 of 2025

Ankit Rastogi And Another		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Rajeev Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

1. This case has been taken up on a mention.

¶7

2. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶8

3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Premnagar, District Bareilly with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶9

4 . It is contended 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. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants. It is submitted that the first information report has been lodged after a delay of three years. It is submitted that it is a case of commercial nature, which is being given colour of criminality. It is further submitted that some commercial transaction took place between the applicants and the first informant for an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/and when the applicants demanded to refund the said amount, present FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted that Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot stand together in view of the laid down by Hon'ble Apex Coourt rendered in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940)Ltd and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , 2024 4 ACR 610. It is also submitted that

¶10

NABAIL No. 3906 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶13

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that Rs. 1,00,000/- has been returned back by the applicants to the first informant.

¶14

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

¶15

7. First information report has been lodged after a delay of three years. The allegation against the applicants is that some monetary transaction has taken place between the applicants and the first informant and in order to put pressure on the applicants, a false allegation has been made that the amount was taken for securing the job.

¶16

8. 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, 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.

¶17

9 . Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, 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.

¶18

10 . The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶19

11. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Ankit Rastogi and Akshra Rastogi involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with

¶20

NABAIL No. 3906 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶23

(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;

¶24

(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;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

12. 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 herein.

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

October 9, 2025

¶30

Abhishek

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit Rastogi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Rastogi and Another 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