Hooblal vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.629 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station Chiluwatal, District Gorakhpur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the allegation made in the first information report are not fully true. It is also submitted that as per first information report, the applicant is said to have executed sale deed of a property to the first informant, which was already sold to some other person. It is further submitted that both the sale deeds have been annexed in the memo of the application. It is further submitted that the applicant along with one co-vendor Tribhuwan are said to have executed sale deed of their share in favour of one Manorama Devi and the share of the applicant in the said transaction is 0.132 hectare, whereas the applicant is having property of 0.146 hectare in the said Khata number and the applicant had gone to sell the remaining property admeasuring 0.0132 Hectare remaining property to the first informant, however, without knowledge of the applicant, the first informant got executed the sale deed of the entire property. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation and the

¶11

NABAIL No. 9703 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

applicant is having no criminal history. 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.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted by him that the applicant has sold the same land twice to the first informant, which was already sold to some other person.

¶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, 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

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Hooblal involved in the aforesaid case crime 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,

¶21

NABAIL No. 9703 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

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;

¶24

(iii) The applicant would co-operate 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

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.

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

December 1, 2025

¶29

RKM

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hooblal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hooblal 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

Aniket Rai vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep vs State of U.P. and Another

Lovekush vs State of U.P.

Ekhalak Husen vs State of U.P.

Abdul Haseeb vs State of U.P. and Another

Suhail @ Sohel vs State of U.P.