Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 156805 (ALL)

JITENDRA YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/1005/2025 · 2025-08-12

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46972 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1005 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. 3. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No 252 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 127(2), 351(3), 115(2), 308(5) of B.N.S, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda. 4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.06.2025 against four named persons, including the applicant and an unknown person, stating that the informant had borrowed money from other three named co- accused persons. He could not repay the money lent by the co- accused persons and he started residing at Varanasi for earning his livelihood. On 02.06.2025, the other three named accused persons, who had lent money to the informant, forcibly brought him, kept him bondage in a hotel room and threatened him to pay Rs. 7 Lakhs to them. The informant stated that the applicant and another unknown person was also involved in it. He further stated that when the accused persons came to know that police was looking after the informant, they set the informant free. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in another criminal case has been disclosed by filing a supplementary affidavit, in which he has already been released on bail. 6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the investigation of the present case is still going on. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact the informant has sated in the F.I.R that he had borrowed money from the other three named accused persons and those persons had brought him from Varanasi to Gonda; even as per the F.I.R version, the accused persons had set the informant free and the informant himself has lodged the F.I.R; that besides presence of the applicant with the other co-accused persons no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Jitendra Yadav before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make themselves 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 or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. . (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench