Yogendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 0426 of 2024, Under Sections: 74, 352, 351(3) of BNS & 7/8 POCSO of P. S. Pisawan, Sitapur.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no criminal antecedents whatsoever. It is further submitted that the offences alleged against the applicant are punishable with a maximum sentence of up to seven years and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The learned counsel further contends that the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita suffer from material improvements and inconsistencies, and there is a clear absence of corroborative medical evidence supporting the prosecution case.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that if the accused is granted anticipatory bail, he undertakes to comply with all conditions imposed by the Court. He has cooperated with the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶14

NABAIL No. 113 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by the parties, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; prior to the lodging of the present F.I.R., an earlier F.I.R. was registered on the same day by the applicant against the complainant; the charge-sheet has already been filed; there is lack of corroborative evidence; and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant to cooperate in the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, subject to his cooperation in the trial.

¶17

In view of the above, the accused-applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of twenty days from today. Upon his surrender, the trial court shall release him on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence;

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court;

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness;

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance;

¶22

(v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant;

¶23

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶24

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶26

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶27

January 27, 2026/R.C.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yogendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 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

Mathura @ Mathura Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ritesh Kashyap @ Ajay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Ram Bilash Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Technical Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Mohd. Asif Indrishi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko.

Syed Saif Haider Rizvi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Agri. Lko and 2 Others

Vijay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others