Tejman Vs State of U.P. and Another

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Gopiganj, District Bhadohi during pendency of the trial.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that accused/applicant has been falsely implicated by the Branch Manager of Indian Bank in FIR dated 30.03.2025 for the incident occurred between 12.09.2023 to 11.12.2023 with the allegation against the 11 named accused that they have taken the gold loan by providing fictitious gold to the Bank, which has been initially checked by the co-accused persons in connivance with the accused, who have taken the gold loan. The gold analyst and the accused both have been named in the FIR. Learned counsel submits that the gold, which was given at the time of taking loan was pure gold and was erroneously found to be fictitious. The gold analyst is the employee of the Bank on whose report the gold loan was granted to the accused/applicant. Further submits that there is no criminal history of accused/applicant. The accused/applicant is apprehending arrest, hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶11

NABAIL No. 3893 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submits that the charge sheet is submitted against the accused/applicant. There is no criminal history other than the present one.

¶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

Considering that initially the gold loan was taken in the year 2023 after gold purity analysis but lateron the same has been found fictitious gold. Further this Court, while considering the gravity of accusation 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- Tejman involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer as the case may be within thirty 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

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

¶19

NABAIL No. 3893 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

witnesses.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶28

April 23, 2026

¶29

Abhishek Sri.

¶30

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

Tejman v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejman 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sajid @ Bhoora vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Ahamad vs State of U.P.

Anup vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rahul Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Gaur and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sajid vs State of U.P. and Another