Ankit Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9286 of 2025

Ankit Kumar Yadav		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Shukla, holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 80 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

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 as no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that as per allegation in the FIR, 04 persons including the applicant are said to have assaulted the first informant side as a result of which 03 persons are said to have received injuries but none of the injuries is dangerous to life. 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.

¶9

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

¶10

NABAIL No. 9286 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

¶13

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

¶14

6. As per the allegation in the first information report, 04 persons including the applicant are said to have assaulted the first informant side as a result of which 03 persons are said to have received injuries but none of the injuries is dangerous to life. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ankit Kumar Yadav 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 :-

¶19

(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;

¶20

(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

¶21

NABAIL No. 9286 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

November 26, 2025

¶29

Abhishek

¶30

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

Ankit Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar Yadav 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

Mohit Mishra vs State of U.P.

Shamshad vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra vs State of U.P.

Sahil vs State of U.P.

Deepak Singhal vs State of U.P. and Another