Ramji and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 has been arrested and the application has become infructuous in respect of applicant no.1, Ramji.

¶12

Accordingly, the application in respect of applicant no.1 Ramji is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶13

Now, the application survives only on behalf of applicants no.2 Vijayee and applicant no.3 Govinda.

¶14

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.257 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 118(2), 333, 352 of B.N.S., Police Station Dakshin Tola, District Mau, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶15

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant nos.2 and 3 that no specific role has been assigned to any of them and none of the injuries of the injured has been found to be dangerous to life. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶16

On the other hand, learned AGA submits that he has not received instructions in the matter as yet.

¶17

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

¶18

NABAIL No. 2072 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

while deciding anticipatory bail, 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.

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicants - Vijayee and Govinda involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till 07.04.2026 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 :-

¶22

(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;

¶23

(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;

¶24

(iii) The applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

List this case on 07.04.2026 as fresh.

¶28

Learned AGA is directed to obtain instructions in the matter by the next date.

¶29

February 26, 2026 RKM

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramji and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji and 2 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

Veerendra Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ajit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotelal Patel vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ashfaq Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Singh @ Bhola vs State of U.P. and Another