Ramendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

¶13

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

¶14

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 49A of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201, 120B/34 IPC and Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Gadwar, District Ballia with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 against applicant and several others and as per allegation applicant and other co-accused misappropriated the public fund but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

¶16

He further submits, vide order dated 07.01.2020 applicant has been enlarged on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the present matter by co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.528 of 2020 but now charge-sheet has been filed.

¶17

NABAIL No. 6022 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

He further submits, as during investigation applicant was on anticipatory bail, therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail after submission of the charge-sheet.

¶20

He further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of three cases but all the cases were of the year 2006 and he explained his criminal history in supplementary affidavit dated 06.10.2025 filed in support of instant application.

¶21

He further submits, applicant is having apprehension that if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

However, as per allegation, applicant was public servant and he along with others misappropriated the public fund but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.01.2020 and there is no allegation that applicant did not cooperate with the investigation.

¶25

Further, now charge-sheet has been filed and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

¶26

Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of three cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit and it appears, in all the three cases applicant has been made accused in the year 2006 with similar allegation.

¶27

Further, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶28

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.

¶29

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

¶30

NABAIL No. 6022 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶33

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

¶34

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;

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

October 8, 2025 AK Pandey

¶42

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶43

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

Ramendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramendra 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases