Rahul vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 557 of 2023 under Section 363 IPC, Police Station Kandhla, District Shamli with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that arrest of the applicant was stayed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.1.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 437 of 2024. It is further submitted that as per allegations in the FIR, no offence under section 363 IPC is made out against the applicant and prior to lodging of the present case, the first informant had filed a case in which it has been stated by him that applicant and the victim were returning home by a vehicle which met with an accident and the victim died in the said accident. It is further submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and chargesheet has already been submitted. 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 and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of

¶12

NABAIL No. 9522 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant had moved application under section 528 BNSS challenging the cognizance order as well as the chargesheet and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to surrender before the Court below and apply for bail.

¶15

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that legal remedy of anticipatory bail cannot be waived off by the appliant and that remedy cannot be curtailed by any specific order of the Court.

¶16

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

¶17

Initially, an FIR was lodged by the first informant in which it has been stated by him that applicant and the victim were returning home by a vehicle which met with an accident and the victim died in the said accident. Subsequently, the present FIR has been lodged. Arrest of the applicant was stayed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.1.2024 and now chargesheet has been submitted in the case. Applicant had moved application under section 528 BNSS challenging the cognizance order as well as the chargesheet and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to surrender before the Court below and apply for bail.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

NABAIL No. 9522 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

In the event of arrest of the applicant Rahul 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 :-

¶24

(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;

¶25

(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;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

November 25, 2025

¶31

Madhurima

¶32

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

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P.

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

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

Mohit Mishra vs State of U.P.

Shamshad vs State of U.P. and Another