Mukesh vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7804 of 2025

Mukesh .....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir, Mohd Nazam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

Case taken up on mention.

¶7

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

¶8

Heard Sri J.M. Nasir, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 12 of 2019 under sections 147, 148, 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that present prosecution has been lodged only to exert pressure on the applicant. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, applicant is said to have executed a sale deed of a land belonging to the first informant on the basis of a forged power of attorney. It is further submitted that role of preparing the forged power of attorney has been assigned to co-accused Malti Agarwal. It is further submitted that first informant has already filed a suit for cancellation of the alleged sale deed. It is further submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today. It is further submitted that Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.3.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6908 of 2019 had granted

¶11

NABAIL No. 7804 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

interim protection from arrest till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. 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 and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Chargesheet has already been submitted in the case. Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.3.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6908 of 2019 had granted interim protection to the applicant from arrest till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have executed a sale deed of a land belonging to the first informant on the basis of a forged power of attorney prepared by one Malti Agarwal. First informant has already filed a suit for cancellation of the alleged sale deed. Criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today.

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

¶18

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of 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

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant Mukesh involved in the aforesaid

¶21

NABAIL No. 7804 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

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 :-

¶24

(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 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 co-operate 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

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.

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

November 6, 2025 Madhurima

¶31

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

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Om Prakash Puri vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chaman and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Irshad Khan and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh @ Jogesh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitesh Gupta Alias Golu vs State of U.P.