Raj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0139 of 2024, under Sections 506, 120B, 406, 504, 471, 467, 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

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

¶13

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 and the FIR has been lodged after a delay of two years and the first informant himself is said to have received money from various candidates on the false promise of securing them government job. 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

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.

¶15

6. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and

¶16

NABAIL No. 1177 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant- Raj Kumar Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim 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 till 30.3.2026 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, 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;

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

8. List this case as fresh on 30.3.2026.

¶25

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

¶26

February 12, 2026 Abhishek

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

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

Raj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Yadav 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

Dheeraj Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Pal vs State of U.P.

Vaseem vs State of U.P.

Rahul vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P.

Smt Rumali vs State of U.P.