SANJAY YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4311 of 2026

Sanjay Yadav And Another
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :   Devendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants
and Learned AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS
has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to release them on
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 239 of 2022, under Section 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act, P.S.- Dholna, District - Kasganj, during
pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the accused
applicants have been falsely implicated by the Supply Inspector in the
FIR dated 1.9.2022 for the alleged incident of 22.3.2022. The allegation is
of adulteration of bio diesel in the pump. During investigation, the
accused applicants have not been arrested. Charge sheet has been
submitted. The accused applicants have no criminal history. The accused
applicants want to appear before the trial court but apprehending arrest.
Hence, seek anticipatory bail.

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

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
                                                       NABAIL No. 4311 of 2026
                                2


(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. Considering that the accused applicants have not been arrested during
the investigation, 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.

7. The applicants- Sanjay Yadav and Yadraam Singh 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.

(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.
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 4311 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    (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 5, 2026
                                    Krishna*




Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad