Ritik Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113204

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4913 of 2025

Applicant :- Ritik Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Gupta,Mohd. Faizan Ali,Vandana Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

¶8

Heard Sri Ashutosh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 572 of 2023, under Sections 379, 120B IPC, Police Station Sadar, District Agra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first anticipatory bail application has been disposed off by this Bench vide order dated 05.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 14207 of 2023 with the direction that maximum punishment provided for the alleged offences is seven years, therefore, authorities concerned should follow the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

¶11

He further submits, pursuant to the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by this Court during investigation applicant has not been arrested but now charge-sheet has been filed. He further submits, applicant is having apprehension that if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

¶12

He further submits, as maximum punishment provided for the alleged offences is seven years and during investigation applicant was not arrested, therefore, there is no occasion to send him jail after submission of the charge-sheet.

¶13

He further submits, after submission of the charge-sheet the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary

¶14

He further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant anticipatory bail application.

¶15

He further submits, therefore, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

However, this is second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and it reflects, first anticipatory bail application has been disposed off considering the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and pursuant to the order passed by this Court on the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant, he has not been arrested during investigation but now charge-sheet has been filed.

¶19

Considering the fact that charge-sheet in the present matter has already been submitted, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, cannot be ruled out. Further, considering the general practice adopted by the courts concerned now a days apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant can also not be ruled out.

¶20

Further, however, apart from the present case, it appears, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant anticipatory bail application. Further, it also appears, maximum punishment provided for the alleged offences is seven years.

¶21

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶22

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶23

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ritik Upadhyay involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶24

i. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶25

ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶26

iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶27

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶28

v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶30

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶31

Order Date :- 15.7.2025 AK Pandey

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ritik Upadhyay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritik Upadhyay 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases