Pintu Yadav Alias Kaushal Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6154 of 2025

¶3

Pintu Yadav Alias Kaushal Yadav And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vivek Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rahul Singh Yadav, Rama Shanker, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 71

¶7

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Pintu Yadav alias Kaushal Yadav, Sacha Ram Yadav and Pradeep Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.384 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 125, 351(3), 333, 110 B.N.S., Police Station Cholapur, District Varanasi.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Due to some old animosity between both the parties and in connection with the construction of house, the named accused persons made an assault upon the informant side and caused injuries to Ram Dular, the elder brother of the informant by using bricks, stones, iron rod etc. with the intention to kill him and he sustained serious injuries on his head and face and became unconscious. Four injured persons had been shown in the F.I.R. of this case, who have sustained serious injuries. On information, police came on spot and injured persons were taken to the hospital for medical examination by the police. F.I.R. was lodged promptly and investigation started which culminated into charge-sheet.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this matter. They have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that the prosecution story as described in the

¶12

NABAIL No. 6154 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

F.I.R. is bogus and false story. No such incident was caused by the applicants. No assault of any kind was made by the applicants over the informant or other persons of the informant side. The medical report reflects that no serious injury was caused to any of the injured person in the alleged occurrence and the injuries are simple in nature. No fracture was found to any of the injured persons who are said to have sustained injures in the alleged incident. In fact, injuries were inflicted by the informant side to some persons of the applicants side. It is further submitted that the applicants have been cooperative during investigation and now after submission of the charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation is required in the matter. It is further submitted that the criminal history shown against the applicants has been explained. If the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the trial. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the anticipatory bail but could not dispute this fact that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has been given to the applicants during investigation and they never misused the said liberty.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of

¶20

NABAIL No. 6154 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial.

¶23

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶24

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the end of trial on their 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:-

¶25

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶26

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶27

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶28

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

¶29

November 18, 2025 ss

¶30

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶31

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

Pintu Yadav Alias Kaushal Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Yadav Alias Kaushal Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shobhit and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyaveer vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivram vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Prakash and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepu Alias Lalla vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh vs State of U.P.