Hajara Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9832 of 2025

Hajara Singh And 3 Others			.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sunil Kumar Mishra	Tiwari,	Vijay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶7

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 347 of 2010, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶8

3 . It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants. It is submitted that the applicants have been summoned to face trial in a complaint case in the year 2010. It is submitted that the applicants filed an application u/s 482 CrPC before this Court wherein proceedings of the said case were stayed vide order dated 5.5.2011 passed in Application u/s 482 No. 5283 of 2011 and the said application was finally disposed of vide order dated 28.4.2017 with liberty to the applicants to seek regular bail in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of UP. It is submitted that the applicants were not aware of the direction and therefore, they did not approach the trial Court to seek regular bail. It is submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to cooperate in the

¶9

NABAIL No. 9832 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

trial. It is further submitted that legal remedy of availing anticipatory bail cannot be curtailed by specific order of any Court. It is also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate 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. The applicants have been summoned to face trial in a complaint case in the year 2010 and thereafter they filed an application u/s 482 CrPC before this Court wherein proceedings of the said case were stayed and the said application was finally disposed with liberty to the applicants to seek regular bail. The applicants were not aware of the direction and therefore, they did not approach the trial Court to seek regular bail. The applicants are ready and willing to cooperate in the trial.

¶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 . Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants 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

NABAIL No. 9832 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

10. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Hajara Singh, Balveer Singh, Balvindar Singh and Jameel Ahmad involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 :-

¶21

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶22

(ii) The applicants 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 applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶24

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants herein.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

December 10, 2025 Abhishek

¶28

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

Hajara Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajara Singh and 3 Others 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

Ajay Tripathi Alias Gopal vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Tara Devi vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Avinash Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another