Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 145981 (ALL)

RAVI YADAV @ TANTAN v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/655/2025 · 2025-06-20

Rajeev Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35968 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 655 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravi Yadav @ Tantan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Yadav,Vineet Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0030 of 2025 under sections 331(4), 305 B.N.S, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the name of the applicant has surfaced on the basis of the confessional statemenet of the co-accused and except for the confessional statement of the co-accused, no other evidence has been found against the applicant. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/01002020 and Siddharth Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 615 and submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the proceeding and no custodial interrogation is necessary, therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail. The applicant never misused the liberty given by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the anticipatory bail may be granted to him. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of applicant but he does not dispute the fact that the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of the co- accused. 5. Considering the argument of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the FIR as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. In view of the above, the application is disposed of. 7. In case, the applicant, namely, Ravi Yadav @ Tantan is taken into custody, she shall be released by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of each of like amount with the following condition:- (i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (ii) 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. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC/269 B.N.S. (v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure him presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C/84 B.N.S.S., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/209 B.N.S. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C/351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 20.6.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench