Mahendra and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8825 of 2025

Mahendra And 2 Others		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Alok Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶7

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0029 of 2025, under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶8

3 . It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants as no specific role has been assigned to any of the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants are said to have assaulted the first informant side as a result of which two persons are said to have received injuries but none of the injuries are dangerous to life. It is further submitted that none of the injuries is on their vital part. It is submitted that the applicants are not having criminal history. It is also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

NABAIL No. 8825 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

¶12

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

¶13

6. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicants and the injuries received by the injured are not dangerous to life. The applicants are not having criminal history.

¶14

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.

¶15

8 . Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶16

9 . The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶17

10. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Mahendra, Om Singh and Shriniwas involved 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 Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶18

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶19

(ii) 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any

¶20

NABAIL No. 8825 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

police officer;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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 applicants herein.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

November 13, 2025

¶28

Abhishek

¶29

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

Mahendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra and 2 Others 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

Similar cases

Mohammad Kasif vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Garg vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Upadhyay vs State of U.P.

Chandra Prakash vs State of U.P.

Atul and Another vs State of U.P.

Pawan vs State of U.P.