MADHUKAR SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 3865 of 2026

Madhukar Srivastava
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Anuj Srivastava,        Devaang      Savla,
                                Shubham
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
                    HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

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

2. 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.

3. 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
                                                       NABAIL No. 3865 of 2026
                                2


investigation. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail of this Court.

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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 :-

(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.
                                                        NABAIL No. 3865 of 2026
                                 3


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

(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.

(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.

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

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

9. 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.

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

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.

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.
                                                                                        NABAIL No. 3865 of 2026
                                                                  4


                                    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.

                                    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.




                                                                                          (Avnish Saxena,J.)
                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Shivangi




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