Ramesh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9839 of 2025

¶3

Ramesh Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

		Versus
State of U.P. and Another				.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Hare Ram Dwivedi	Pandey,	Varun Shankar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 72

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

2. Heard Sri Hare Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

3. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2025, under Sections 109, 126(2), 191(2), 115(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Basgaon, District Gorakhpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

4. 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 specific role of assault by sharp edged weapon is on co-accused Ankit Yadav. It is further submitted that the injured Ayush has not assigned specific role of assault to the applicant. It is also submitted that the 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.

¶11

NABAIL No. 9839 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

¶14

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

¶15

7. As per the allegation in the first information report, 11 persons are said to have attacked the son of the first informant and there is specific allegation against co-accused Ankit Yadav that he inflicted wounds by sharp edged weapon on the person of the son of first informant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant and even the injured Ayush has not assigned any specific role of the applicant. As per medical report of the injured, there is one lacerated wound on shoulder. The applicant is having no criminal history.

¶16

8. 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.

¶17

9. 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.

¶18

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶19

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ramesh Yadav 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 :-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear

¶21

NABAIL No. 9839 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶24

(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;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

12. 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.

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

December 10, 2025 Abhishek

¶30

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

Ramesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Yadav 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

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

Avinash Singh vs State of U.P. and Another