Allahabad High Court
ANKIT YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court held that, on a prima facie basis of possible false implication, anticipatory bail could be granted subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Ankit Yadav under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged threats, poisoning, and a forced marriage. The applicant claimed false implication, stating that the victim was being coerced into marriage and that no incriminating evidence, such as the alleged indecent photos, had been found. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS that specifically named the applicant as the perpetrator. After reviewing the victim's testimony and the surrounding circumstances, the Court found a prima facie possibility of false implication and, without passing on the merits, granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The order directed that, if arrested, the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with police, no intimidation of witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC given the allegations of threat and poisoning.
- Whether the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the possibility of false implication warrants the grant of anticipatory bail despite the seriousness of the accusations.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 123
- BNSS — s. 180, 183
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- I.T. Act — s. 67
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- threat
- poisoning
- forced marriage
- Section 482 CrPC
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9118 of 2026
Ankit Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arpit Singh, Jai Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.401 of 2026, under Section 123 BNS and
Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Buxa, District Jaunpur, with a prayer
to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest
in the above-mentioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegation is of the
applicant threatening the daughter of the informant with releasing her
indecent photos on the internet and thereafter of feeding some
poisonous/noxious substance in a cold drink, which left her unconscious.
The Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
and the victim were in a romantic relationship which was objected to by
her parents and she was being forced into a marriage against her wishes.
The Learned counsel has submitted that the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and no such viral photo has been discovered during the
investigation. The Learned counsel states that the victim was being forced
to marry against her wishes and she may have attempted suicide to avoid
the marriage.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that
NABAIL No. 9118 of 2026
2
the applicant is the solitary accused in the present case and the victim in
her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has specifically
nominated the applicant as the person who had fed her some poisonous
substance in a cold drink. He may not be considered for grant of
anticipatory.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
6. From a perusal of the statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183
of BNSS of the victim, in the prima facie opinion of the Court, it appears
that the victim was being forced to marry someone against her wishes.
The victim claims to have been in a relationship with the applicant for the
past two years and states that when she was caught chatting with the
applicant her family members fixed her marriage against her wishes. In
view of this statement as mentioned above, the false implication of the
applicant cannot be ruled out.
7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to
enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Ankit Yadav, he shall be
released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on
furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
ii. that 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;
NABAIL No. 9118 of 2026
3
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;
iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 21, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…