Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39921

Court No. - 30

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 849 of 2025

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant, Pradeep Kumar Yadav on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0027 of 2025, under Sections 109, 352, 351(3), 324(5) and 3(5) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Chanda, District Sultanpur.

¶8

The argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He submits that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons for beating the injured. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. He next submits that the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on regular bail and the applicant is cooperating in the investigation proceeding and he undertakes that he will always cooperate in the investigation. He further submits that co-accused, namely-Ajay Yadav had been enlarged on anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No.639 of 2025.

¶9

His further submission with vehemence is that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused, Vinod Yadav. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and there is an apprehension that the police will arrest him and and as such, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel appearing appearing for the complainant have opposed the contentions aforesaid and submit that though the applicant is not named in the first information report, but the injured

¶11

witnesses have named the applicant. They submits that the injured have received injuries and there are substantial evidence against him and as such, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is not named in the first information report and no specific role has been assigned even in the statement of the injured.

¶13

This court has also taken note of the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and as per submission of learned counsel for the applicant that there is an apprehension that the police will arrest him and the applicant has undertaken that he will always cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, this court finds it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and therefore, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Pradeep Kumar Yadav till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii) that 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶19

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20