Amit Kumar Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9142 of 2025

Amit Kumar Chaudhary

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Shri Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 72

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

1. Heard Mr. Shri Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0006 of 2025, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Siddhartha Nagar, District Siddhartha Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in the present prosecution. It is further submitted that in 04 cases of similar nature the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail and in 06 other cases his arrest has been stayed. It is further submitted that chargesheet has already been submitted against the applicant. 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-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶11

NABAIL No. 9142 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant has been made accused in 10 cases of similar nature.

¶14

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

¶15

6. As per the first information report, the allegation against the applicant is that on account of inefficiency on the part of the applicant and other coaccused persons, Rs. 67 crores as Rice Mill owners has been transferred to about 200 persons in wrong method, which resulted loss of State exchequer of about Rs. 11 crore. The applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail in 04 cases and in 06 other cases his arrest has been stayed. In the present prosecution chargesheet has already been submitted.

¶16

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.

¶17

8. 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 merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶18

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶19

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Amit Kumar Chaudhary involved in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear

¶21

NABAIL No. 9142 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶24

(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;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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 applicant herein.

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

November 10, 2025 Abhishek

¶30

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

Amit Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Manoj Kumar Thakur vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Ranjeet Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Danish vs State of U.P. and Another

Tara Datt vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shaista Jabi vs State of U.P. and Another

Saira and Another vs State of U.P. and Another