Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 194599 (ALL)

GAURAV MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

NABAIL/8166/2025 · 2025-10-13

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8166 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri M.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 02 of 2023 under Sections 14 of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and 79 of Juvenile Justice Act, Police Station Manav Virodhi Taskari Ekai (Anti Human Trafficking Unit), District Gorakhpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as the applicant had some heated argument with the first informant who is sub-inspector in police department. He further submits that maximum punishment which can be imposed on conviction of the applicant is five years. He also submits that applicant has no criminal history to his credit and chargesheet has been filed in the present case. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anjani Kumar Tripathi, Maruti Kumar Tripathi, Shiv Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gaurav Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per the FIR, the applicant is said to have engaged two minor boys aged about 8 to 10 years for serving in his cafe. Maximum punishment which can be imposed on conviction of the applicant is five years. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit and chargesheet has been filed in the present case. 7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant Gaurav Mishra involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (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 NABAIL No. 8166 of 2025 2 to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. October 14, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 8166 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad