Akash vs State of U.P through Its Principal Secretary (Home),U.P and Another

1. Heard Sri Afzal Hussain, holding brief of Mohd. Qasim, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 62 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶11

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. It is also submitted that there is a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and the first informant and false allegations have been levelled in the FIR. It is also submitted that date and time has not been mentioned in the FIR regarding the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the mother of the applicant lodged a complaint against the first informant regarding the same incident which is pending before the learned Magistrate. It is also submitted that the applicant has also received injuries in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that chargesheet has already been submitted and the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the trial. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the

¶12

NABAIL No. 9289 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

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.

¶15

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the applicant is not cooperating and on 9.10.2025 non-bailable warrant has been issued.

¶16

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

¶17

6. Chargesheet has already been submitted in the present prosecution. A complaint case is also said to have been lodged by the mother of the applicant against the first informant regarding the same incident. The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the trial.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Akash 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 :-

¶22

(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

¶23

NABAIL No. 9289 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

concerned;

¶26

(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;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶31

November 26, 2025 Abhishek

¶32

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

Akash v. State of U.P through Its Principal Secretary (Home),U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash v. State of U.P through Its Principal Secretary (Home),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