Dampi vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7867 of 2025

¶3

Dampi

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Jainendra Kumar Pandey, Pandey	Vipin Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 71

¶6

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Dampi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Sections 179, 180 of BNS, Police Station- Fatehganj West, District- Bareilly.

¶9

Present is the case of recovery of counterfeit and fake currency notes from two accused persons who were apprehended by the police when it was on gust and when both the accused persons tried to flying away by motor cycle they were held by the police force. On search fake currency notes amounting Rs.24,700/- and 26,700/- were recovered. They were taken into custody and on query made by the police they disclosed the fact that the present accused applicant is the person who exchange fake currency notes of Rs.1 lac in lieu of the currency notes of Rs.30,000/-.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the present accused applicant has not been arrested on spot and till now no recovery has been made by the police from his house or office and he has not been arrested by the police. It is further submitted that the accused applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. The applicant wants to cooperate with the investigation if anticipatory bail is granted to him. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter that no recovery has been made from the present accused applicant from his house/ office.

¶12

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, llikelihood 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

¶13

NABAIL No. 7867 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 193 (3) BNSS before the competent Court.

¶18

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶24

November 25, 2025 Fhd

¶25

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dampi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dampi 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

Nadeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhurav Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Ashish Singh Alias Ashish Bhai vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. through District Magistrate and 2 Others

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

Smt. Anju Sharma @ Anju Pandey vs State of Up and Another