Allahabad High Court
RAVI YADAVversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail is warranted and granted to the applicant with conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Ravi Yadav, who was implicated in a case (Crime No. 362 of 2018) involving offences under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The applicant argued that he was innocent, had cooperated with the investigation, and was willing to appear before the trial court, while acknowledging a prior criminal history. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's antecedents. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the court examined the nature of the accusations, the risk of flight, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. Finding that the criteria for anticipatory bail were satisfied, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and several conditions, including cooperation with the trial and restriction on leaving India.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving offences under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
- Whether the applicant's criminal history and the seriousness of the alleged offences preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the applicant is likely to flee, tamper with evidence, or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41-A, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
- high court
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2112 of 2026
Ravi Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Vashisth
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Uma
Shankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Case Crime no.362 of 2018, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C.,
Police Station Tharwai, District Prayagraj, with the prayer that in the
event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further submitted that the charge sheet in this case has already been
submitted and the applicant was served a notice under Section 41-A
Cr.P.C. during investigation. It is further submitted that the charge sheet
was submitted in the year 2020 and cognizance has been taken in the year
2024 and the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the trial. It is
also submitted that the applicant is having criminal history, which has
been explained in the memo of application. 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. It has been stated
that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the
liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey
all conditions of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
NABAIL No. 2112 of 2026
2
anticipatory bail.
5. Applicant was served a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. during
investigation. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was submitted
in the year 2020 and cognizance has been taken in the year 2024 and the
applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the trial. It is also submitted
that the applicant is having criminal history, which has been explained in
the memo of application.
6. 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, 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.
7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding
anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role
of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ravi Yadav involved in the
aforesaid case crime shall be released on 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, with the following
conditions :-
(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;
(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;
NABAIL No. 2112 of 2026
3
(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the
liberty of bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court concerned.
10. 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 applicant.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 19, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…