Devesh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secreatary ( Ministry of Home )

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8861 of 2025

¶2

Devesh Kumar And Another

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secreatary Home )	( Ministry Of .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Narendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This is the second anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicants Devesh Kumar and Chandra Shekhar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0219 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 452, 306 I.P.C., Police Station Nawabganj, District Farrukhabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. The first criminal misc. anticipatory bail application u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. No.11367 of 2024 has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants had filed first criminal misc. anticipatory bail application u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. No. 11367 of 2024 prior to submission of charge sheet, in which interim protection vide order dated 02.12.2024 was granted to the applicants, till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, after calling counter and rejoinder affidavits. He further submits that the aforesaid anticipatory bail application has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 02.07.2025, however prior to the order dated 02.07.2025, the charge sheet has been filed on 22.01.2025 upon which cognizance has also been taken against the applicants vide order dated 24.07.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that according to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the ingredients of Section 306 is not made out. The applicants did not abet the deceased to commit suicide. In

¶11

NABAIL No. 8861 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

fact, the deceased was not ready to solemnise marriage since he was unemployed and under the pressure and frustration, the deceased had committed suicide. Learned counsel further argued that the applicants may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, inspite of the fact that there is no credible evidence against them, yet the investigation officer submitted the charge in per-functionary manner without any cogent evidence against them. It has further been submitted that applicants undertakes to co-operate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would abide all conditions of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶15

Perusal of the record shows that specific allegation has been levelled against the applicants in commission of offence. The investigating officer, during the course of investigation has collected credible evidence against the applicants and their complicity in commission of offence is supported by oral as well as documentary evidence. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, 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.

¶16

In the instant case, considering the settled principle 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 on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶17

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶18

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶19

November 10, 2025 S.Ali

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secreatary ( Ministry of Home )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secreatary ( Ministry of Home )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P.

Amaan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahul vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Rohit Kashyap vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munna Prasad vs State of U.P.