Allowed¶26

Deepak Alias Gabbar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025NABAIL/7668/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court anticipatory bail granted November 25, 2025; CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS (NABAIL) No. 7668 of 2025, Court No. 71, Judge Nalin Kumar Srivastava; applicants Deepak @ Gabbar and Umesh Sonkar versus State of U.P. and Another; Case Crime No. 343 of 2024, Sections 109, 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Lar, Deoria; free fight, both sides lodged FIR, applicants injured, informant-side injured not medically examined, charge-sheet not filed, applicants cooperating with IO; bail till police report under Section 193 (3) BNSS; personal bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in like amount to SHO; precedents relied on: Sushila Aggarwal (2020) 5 SCC 1, Siddharth (2022) 1 SCC 676; counsel Ashish Srivastava and Dhananjay Kumar Thakur for applicants, G.A. for State.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: in the event of arrest in the aforesaid case crime, the applicants shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Station House Officer, valid till filing of police report under Section 193 (3) of BNSS, subject to five conditions (availability for interrogation as and when required; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or tamper with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; no commission of similar offences; no leaving India without previous permission of the Court and deposit of passport, if any, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned); on breach of any condition the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail in accordance with law.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Deepak @ Gabbar and Umesh Sonkar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.343 of 2024, under Sections 109, 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS, P.S. Lar, District Deoria.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and 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 also submitted that it is a case of free fight and both sides have lodged FIR. It is also submitted that the present applicants have also sustained injuries in the alleged incident. It is also submitted that none of the injured from the informant side was medically examined. Applicants have no criminal history to their credit. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

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 the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 193 (3) of BNSS before the Competent Court.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicants 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 Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions :-

2. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of applicants in accordance with law.

Deepak Alias Gabbar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Alias Gabbar and Another 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

Smt. Muskan and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Pratima and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nadeem Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Faizan vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgesh Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalpana and Another vs the State of U.P. and 8 Others