Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9520 of 2025

Ashish Kumar	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ajeet Singh, Chandra Vijai Singh, Jyoti Singh, Satendra Tirpathi : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 476 of 2012 under Section 387 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was not arrested during investigation and he was served with notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that chargesheet in the case has already been filed and applicant was not having knowledge of the proceedings of the case and now NBW have been issued against him. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that applicant had approached this Court by way of application under section 482 Cr.P.C. in which an order was passed by this Court directing the applicant to surrender before the court

¶10

NABAIL No. 9520 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

concerned and seek regular bail. However, he does not dispute the fact that applicant was not arrested during investigation and he was served with notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C.

¶13

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

¶14

The applicant was not arrested during investigation and he was served with notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. Chargesheet in the case has already been filed and applicant was not having knowledge of the proceedings of the case and now NBW have been issued against him. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶15

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, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶16

Considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant Ashish Kumar 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 ;

¶20

(ii) The applicant would appear before the trial Court on each and every

¶21

NABAIL No. 9520 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

date fixed either in person or through counsel unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶24

(iii) 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

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

November 25, 2025

¶30

Madhurima

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar 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

Alha @ Shiv Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Virendra Singh Pahalwan vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgesh Kumar Rai @ Vikky vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Seth vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Mishra vs State of U.P.