Raju and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7422 of 2025

¶3

Raju And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Santosh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 72

¶7

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Sri S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 132 of 2022 under Sections 147, 353, 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kaila Devi, District Sambhal with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶11

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that present prosecution has been lodged as counter blast to the case filed by the applicant against the first informant. It is further submitted that injuries received by the injured are simple in nature and chargesheet has been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are having criminal cases which are lodged subsequent to filing of the present case. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case they are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of

¶13

NABAIL No. 7422 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

anticipatory bail and submits that applicants indulged in beating the first informant inside the police chowki and they also assaulted a police constable.

¶16

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

¶17

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 accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must also evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶18

Considering the fact that chargesheet has already been filed, keeping in view the submissions of 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.

¶19

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicants Raju, Jasveer, Sumit and Ajab Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail 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 :-

¶21

(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;

¶22

(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;

¶23

(iii) The applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the

¶24

NABAIL No. 7422 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

liberty of bail.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

October 10, 2025

¶31

Madhurima

¶32

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

Raju and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju and 3 Others 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