Rakesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9559 of 2025

Rakesh .....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Kumar, Pavanesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Pavanesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chandra Shekhar Saran, 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. 284 of 2025, under Sections 137(1)(b), 61(2), 351(3), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 75, 80, 81 Juvenile Justice Act, Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor 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. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Roopa and Suraj Kumar have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 8.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. 7802 of 2025. It is further submitted that another co-accused Aarti Rani has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 9.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. 8211 of 2025. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and he is not named in the FIR. 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

¶9

NABAIL No. 9559 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

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.

¶12

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for 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, co-accused Dr. Javed and Dr. Reena Chaudhary kept a new-born bay of the first informant in wrongful confinement for some ulterior motive. Further allegation is that some monetary transaction took place between the first informant and the other co-accused persons in front of the applicant. New-born baby has already been recovered.

¶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- Rakesh 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

NABAIL No. 9559 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

(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;

¶22

(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;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

November 19, 2025

¶28

Abhishek

¶29

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

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Chandraveer Singh vs State of U.P.

Viru Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pyare Miya vs State of U.P.

Sonu Saini Alias Karan Saini vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jasveer Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another