Allowed¶19

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2025NABAIL/8843/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; B.N.S. Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336, 340(2); Case Crime No. 323 of 2025; Police Station Kotwali; District Basti; forged sale deed; marginal witness; Babu Ram; Sessions Court bail in earlier case; AGA without instructions; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694; interim anticipatory bail till 10.12.2025; personal bond Rs. 50,000/-; two sureties like amount; bail conditions; cancellation on default; listed fresh 10.12.2025; Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.; NABAIL No. 8843 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; November 7, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail till 10.12.2025 on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to stated conditions; matter listed fresh on 10.12.2025 with AGA to obtain instructions by the next date.

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Ajay Kumar should be granted anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 323 of 2025 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336, 340(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Basti.

¶11

Court's answer

In the event of arrest, applicant Ajay Kumar is to be released on interim anticipatory bail till 10.12.2025 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Interim anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions: applicant shall not tamper with evidence and shall appear before the trial Court on dates fixed unless exempted; shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure; shall co-operate during trial and not misuse the liberty of bail; and shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶23

Key takeaways

In default of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.ratio¶24
Case to be listed fresh on 10.12.2025, and learned AGA directed to obtain instructions in the matter by the next date.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.), November 7, 2025 — Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 8843 of 2025 (NABAIL). Applicant Ajay Kumar sought pre-arrest bail in Case Crime No. 323 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336, 340(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Basti. Learned AGA had no instructions (nor on the last date). Counsel submitted that an earlier case on the same facts lodged by Babu Ram (said actual owner of the property) had yielded Sessions Court bail to the applicant, and that two months later the alleged purchaser lodged the present FIR alleging the applicant is the marginal witness of the alleged forged sale deed; applicant undertook to co-operate with investigation and trial. Invoking the Supreme Court's guidance in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 (nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents, flight risk, careful evaluation of material, exact role of accused), the Court released the applicant on interim anticipatory bail till 10.12.2025 on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, imposing conditions (no tampering with evidence; appearance before trial Court; no inducement, threat or promise; co-operation during trial; no leaving India without prior permission), with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on any default. AGA directed to obtain instructions; case listed fresh on 10.12.2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8843 of 2025

Ajay Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 72

¶9

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.323 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336, 340(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

At the very outset, learned AGA submits that he has not received instructions in the matter as yet.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the last date also, learned AGA had no instructions. It is further submitted that on the same fact, earlier a case was lodged by one Babu Ram, who is said to be the actual owner of the alleged property. It is further submitted that the applicant was granted bail in the said case by learned Sessions Court. It is further submitted that two months later, the alleged purchaser of the said property has lodged the first information report alleging therein that the applicant is the marginal witness of the alleged forged sale deed. 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 of bail and will co-

¶14

NABAIL No. 8843 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶18

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, 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.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ajay Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till 10.12.2025 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 :-

¶20

(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;

¶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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25