Rahul and Another Vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.204 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 504 of IPC, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶11

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there are general and omnibus allegations against the applicants and the injuries suffered by the injured are not dangerous to life. It is further submitted that two co-accused Bantoo @ Anurudh Kumar and Smt. Rekha have already been granted Anticipatory Bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 18.08.2025 and 04.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No.6561 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No.7247 of 2025. It is further submitted that the applicants are having criminal history, which have been explained in paragraph 22 of the memo of application as well as in the supplementary affidavit filed today. 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. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall

¶12

NABAIL No. 7552 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant no.1 is having criminal history of five cases, whereas he has explained the criminal history of only three cases.

¶16

In reply, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the forth cases, he is not wanted and in fifth case is the present case and he is seeking anticipatory bail.

¶17

As per first information report, the applicants along with other co-accused persons indulged in assaulting the informant side, in which, one injured Dharmendra, the husband of the first informant received injuries, however, the said injuries are not dangerous to life. There is no specific allegations against the applicants and co-accused Bantoo @ Anurudh Kumar and Smt. Rekha have already been granted Anticipatory Bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 18.08.2025 and 04.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No.6561 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No.7247 of 2025.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Rahul and Rakesh involved in the aforesaid case crime 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

¶22

NABAIL No. 7552 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶25

(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;

¶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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

October 8, 2025 RKM

¶31

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul and Another 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