Allahabad High Court
ANOOP KATIYARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The bail application is allowed without touching the merits of the case.
Summary
The accused, Anoop Katiyar, applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 56 of 2025) under Section 229(2) of the CrPC, alleging false implication in an abduction‑ransom investigation involving his relative Harish Katiyar. He contended that three FIRs were filed on the same incident, and he had already been granted bail in two related cases by the same court. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual background. The court, noting the applicant’s prior bail grants in related matters and the ongoing trial, chose not to examine the merits and allowed the bail application. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, invoking the Supreme Court’s recent bail guidelines.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in the pending case under Section 229(2) of the CrPC given the existence of related cases where bail was already granted.
- Whether the alleged false implication and the fact that the trial is ongoing affect the bail eligibility.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s recent bail jurisprudence (Girish Gandhi v. State of UP and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re) applies to this application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 229(2)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- abduction
- ransom
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 229(2)
- personal bond
- sureties
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33835 of 2026
Anoop Katiyar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ganesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ganesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the accused-
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the accused-applicant
Anoop Katiyar to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2025,
under Sections 229(2), 55 BNS, P.S.- Baradari, District- Bareilly, during
the pendency of trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the
accused-applicant has been falsely implicated during investigation of
F.I.R. dated 19.01.2025 lodged by the wife of accused against anonymous
person showing abduction of the accused-applicant. Further contended
that there are three F.I.R.s of the same incident, wherein Harish Katiyar
has been abducted and Rs.15 lakhs ransom was asked from the family
members of the abductee Harish Katiyar. The first was lodged by the
brother-in-law of Harish Katiyar, another by police when Harish Katiyar
has been recovered and the present is the F.I.R. lodged by the wife of
accused-applicant that Harish Katiyar and accused-applicant went
together and there is a ransom call for abduction of Anoop Katiyar
(present accused) in the F.I.R., wherein the accused-applicant has been
made an accused. Further contended that in both the cases, the accused-
applicant has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court and
these two cases are the only criminal history, which is against the
accused-applicant. Further submits that the charge sheet is submitted. The
applicant is in jail since 21.04.2025 and hence, the applicant seeks to be
BAIL No. 33835 of 2026
2
released on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considered the complicity of the accused-applicant in the matter; the
trial is continuing and the accused-applicant has already been granted bail
by the coordinate Bench of this Court in other two cases, arising out of
the same cases.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 23, 2026
Shivangi
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…