Ankit Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

Ankit Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim anticipatory bail granted to Ankit Yadav till 20.1.2026 on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the stated conditions (no tampering with evidence, appearance on dates fixed unless exempted, no inducement/threat/promise to witnesses, cooperation during trial, no departure from India without prior permission); prosecution free to seek cancellation on default of any condition; case listed fresh on 20.1.2026 for further consideration, with the A.G.A. to obtain instructions in the meantime.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Ankit Yadav is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in Case Crime No. 128 of 2025, Sections 309(6) and 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur.

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant Ankit Yadav was ordered to be released on interim anticipatory bail till 20.1.2026 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Ratio / Principle

The interim anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions: (i) no tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial Court on dates fixed unless exempted; (ii) no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure to the Court or police; (iii) cooperation during trial and no misuse of the liberty of interim anticipatory bail; and (iv) no departure from India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

Key takeaways

On default of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.; order dated January 14, 2026): interim anticipatory bail granted to applicant Ankit Yadav in Case Crime No. 128 of 2025, Sections 309(6) and 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur, sought under Section 482 BNSS. Counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the applicant's name surfaced in the confessional statements of co-accused Shiv and Brijesh; the A.G.A. had no instructions as yet. Recounting the anticipatory-bail considerations in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Court, without expressing any opinion on merits, released the applicant on interim anticipatory bail till 20.1.2026 on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, conditioned on: no tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial Court on dates fixed unless exempted; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts; cooperation during trial without misuse of liberty; and no departure from India without prior permission of the Court concerned. On default of any condition the prosecution may apply for cancellation of bail. Case listed fresh on 20.1.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 11022 of 2025

Ankit Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ayush Yadav, Shailendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 72

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2025, under Sections 309(6), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that he has not received any instructions as yet.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant as the first information report has been lodged against unknown and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Shiv and Brijesh. 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.

5. 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.

6. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant- Ankit Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a

NABAIL No. 11022 of 2025

2

personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned till 20.1.2026 with the following conditions :-

(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;

(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;

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

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

7. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein.

8. List this case as fresh on 20.1.2026.

9. In the meantime, learned AGA may obtain instructions in the matter.

January 14, 2026 Abhishek

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

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