Rajkumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Munna Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri V.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.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. 60 of 2023 under Sections 143, 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case in order to avoid payment of advance amount received by her from the applicant. He further submits that FIR has been lodged after a delay of three years. Initially, the amount is said to have been received by the applicant in connection with an agreement to sale. Subsequently, it is alleged that the applicant did not return the earnest money received and promised to secure a government job for the first informant. Learned counsel has referred to two cheques dated 15.12.2022 and 25.12.2022 issued by the first informant in favour of the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant had made payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- for

¶13

NABAIL No. 5079 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

purchase of some immovable property from the first informant and the first informant had issued the aforesaid two cheques which got dishonored. For which, notice was issued by the applicant for making payment of amount on 01.3.2023. 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. It has been stated that in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

FIR has been lodged after a delay of two years. As per the FIR, the allegation is that the applicant received Rs. 23,50,000/- as earnest money for making sale of property in favour of the applicant but subsequently, he did not return either the earnest money nor did he execute the sale deed. Later on, he made a promise that he will secure a government job for the first informant. The applicant is said to have made payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the first informant as earnest money for purchase of some immovable property from her and in this regard, two cheques were also issued by the first informant in favour of the applicant by way of refund. Those cheques got dishonored and notice is said to have been issued by the applicant for payment of the amount. Subsequently, the applicant has filed a complaint under section 138 N.I. Act against the first informant.

¶19

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.

¶20

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of

¶21

NABAIL No. 5079 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

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.

¶24

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶25

In the event of arrest of the applicant Rajkumar Yadav 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 :-

¶26

(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;

¶27

(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;

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶32

October 8, 2025 Madhurima

¶33

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

Rajkumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar 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