Madhukar Srivastava vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3865 of 2026

¶3

Madhukar Srivastava

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

		Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Anuj Srivastava, Shubham	Devaang Savla,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 71

¶6

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Devaang Savla, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that the F.I.R. is lodged against the co-accused except the present applicant on 25.10.2017. The informant of the F.I.R. has stated himself to be the owner of land, which has been fraudulently mutated in the name of co-accused Ram Prakash Mishra. The applicant has purchased the property from Ram Prakash Mishra. Further submits that there was a long legal battle between the two, which led to the observation made by the Board of Revenue in revision allowed by it in order dated 25.04.2018 that the name of father of informant has incorrectly been entered in the revenue record, which was subsequently corrected. The investigation ended in submission of final report, but on subsequent direction made by the Commissioner of Police, the investigation is re-opened and further investigation was started. The accused-applicant, who is the subsequent purchaser for value is apprehending arrest. The two cases of criminal history explained in the supplementary affidavit today, which is taken on record, shows that in both the cases, the final report is submitted by the police after

¶10

NABAIL No. 3865 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

investigation. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail of this Court.

¶13

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶14

The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 , wherein it is consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

¶15

This Court while considering the role of accused-applicant to be the purchaser of land for value and further considering the gravity of accusation, explained criminal history and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

¶16

The applicant- Madhukar Srivastava involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions :-

¶17

(i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

NABAIL No. 3865 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶26

10. The below mentioned directions shall be complied with for expeditious disposal of trial; in case charge sheet is submitted against accused/applicant.

¶27

10.1 As the investigation is continuing, in the event charge sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken, it would be the duty of the accused/applicant to appear before the trial court or Magistrate concerned as the case may be without waiting for the issuance of summons, within 60 days from the date of cognizance or on the date fixed, which ever is earlier. So that the trial may not be delayed for non execution of summons or processes.

¶28

10.2 The District Judge concerned shall direct each Magistrate and Special courts to maintain a register of Anticipatory Bail orders granted by this Court, wherein the details of Anticipatory Bail shall be entered. The dedicated official shall be nominated in each Special court and Magistrate court for maintaining the register.

¶29

NABAIL No. 3865 of 2026

¶30

4

¶31

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶32

10.3 The accused/applicant shall provide a copy of the final order of anticipatory bail within 30 days, to the official concerned in whose jurisdiction the case lies and shall provide his complete contact details including the mobile number and E-mail ID (if maintained); any change in detail shall be informed by the applicant.

¶33

10.4 On the submission of charge sheet and cognizance taken, the Presiding Officer shall fetch the details of the accused/applicant and the dedicated official shall inform the accused at the given detail.

¶34

April 23, 2026 Shivangi

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Madhukar Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Srivastava 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

Lavkush Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tejman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Milan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko

Ram Manorath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tejman vs State of U.P. and Another

Daulat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others