MAHENDRA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4123 of 2026

Mahendra Yadav
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :   Anup Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant
and Learned AGA for the State.

2. 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. 1012 of 2018, under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S. Khorabar, District Gorakhpur during
pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the
accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in the FIR dated
03.12.2018, where the informant has alleged that the accused/applicant
got a WILL executed and registered from an impersonated person in place
of Chinka Devi. The charge sheet is submitted in the year 2020. The
applicant was in jail in connection with another case, who has been
released from the jail on 29.04.2024. He further submits that the trial
court has not summoned the accused before the court in this case, despite
the fact that he was already languishing in jail at that time. After his
release, the bailable and non bailable warrant have been issued against the
accused/applicant. He wants to appear before the trial court but
apprehending arrest. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant.
                                                       NABAIL No. 4123 of 2026
                                2


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 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. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Mahendra Yadav 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 :-

(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.

(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
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 4123 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    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/their 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.



                                                                                               (Avnish Saxena,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Abhishek Sri.




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