Pramod Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 188 of 2025, under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC, Police Station Madhuban, District Mau with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and the first information report has been lodged after a delay of 10 years. It is submitted that as per the allegation in the FIR the applicant is said to have received possession of the house made under the scheme of Indira Awas in place of some actual beneficiary. It is submitted that an enquiry was conducted by the authority concerned and his name does not find as guilty in the enquiry report. It is submitted that recovery notice has been issued against those who were found guilty, however, even no notice of recovery has been issued against the applicant. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty

¶11

NABAIL No. 7674 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶14

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant took possession of the house which was meant for some other beneficiary.

¶15

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

¶16

6. In the present case, the first information report has been lodged after a delay of 10 years. The name of the applicant has not been found guilty in the departmental enquiry and no notice of recovery has been issued against him.

¶17

7. 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, 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.

¶18

8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Pramod Maurya involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court

¶22

NABAIL No. 7674 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

concerned;

¶25

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶26

(iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶27

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

¶28

11. 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 applicant herein.

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

October 8, 2025

¶31

Abhishek

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Maurya 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