Arpit Saxena vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 14092 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 341 of 2017, under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C. and 67, 65, 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that initially an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 306, 452, 323, and 507 of the I.P.C., along with Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008. However, after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the I.P.C. and Sections 67, 65, and 66-D of the Information Technology Act. As per F.I.R., no offence made out against the applicant. It is also submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit. 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 and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶14

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

¶15

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, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶16

NABAIL No. 263 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, let the applicant Arpit Saxena in the event of his arrest, 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 06.02.2026 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 co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Put up this case as fresh on 06.02.2026.

¶25

In the meantime, learned AGA is directed to seek instructions in the matter.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

January 16, 2026 Vibha Singh

¶28

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arpit Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Saxena 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Danish Alias Alex and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Sikander vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun @ Ankur Saini vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Tabassum and 2 Others vs State of U.P.