Allahabad High Court
SATYDEV YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the applicant’s failure to appear and prolonged absconding precluded any basis for such relief.
Summary
The applicant, Satydev Yadav, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC in a case (Crime No. 158 of 2015) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471. The State opposed, noting that the applicant had earlier filed a Section 482 application (No. 39713 of 2019) which the Court disposed on 5 Nov 2019, directing him to appear within three weeks and apply for bail. The applicant failed to appear and remained absconding for about seven years. The learned counsel for the applicant could not rebut the State’s submission. The Court held that, given the applicant’s non‑appearance and prolonged absence, there was no basis to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to an applicant who previously failed to appear after a court‑ordered deadline and has been absconding for several years
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
- non‑appearance
- absconding
- bail denial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. - 9762 of 2026
Satydev Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Kumar Singh
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
applicants in Case Crime No. 158 of 2015, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, District- Ghazipur, with a prayer to
enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in
the above-mentioned case.
3. The Learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection stating that the
applicant had challenged the proceedings in Application U/S 482 No. 39713
of 2019, which was disposed of by this Court on 5.11.2019 granting three
weeks' time to the applicant to appear before the concerned Court and apply
for bail. The applicant did not appear and remained absconding for almost
seven years and he may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has been unable to dispute the
submissions made by the Learned AGA.
5. This Court in Application U/S 482 No. 39713 of 2019, while considering
the challenge to the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1009 of 2019 as
well as the charge sheet dated 18.01.2016, recorded the submission of the
learned counsel for the applicant that he does not want to press the prayer
with regard to quashing and sought a direction for consideration of bail.
6. The said order was passed on the request of the applicant and also interim
protection was granted to enable the applicant to appear and apply for bail
NABAIL No. 9762 of 2026
2
before concerned Court. Despite the order being passed on 5.11.2019, the
applicant did not appear before the concerned Court and now after more than
six years of the passing of the said order, no case for grant of anticipatory
bail is made out.
7. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.
September 28, 2026
Junaid
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…