Allahabad High Court
Pintu Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:193627
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8639 of 2025
Pintu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Shashi Bhushan, Smriti Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Pintu Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2025, under Sections 85, 351(3), 108 of BNS, Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur.
2. Heard Smt. Smriti Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. According to the prosecution case after 11 years of the marriage the deceased committed suicide due to the reason that she was being regularly harassed by her in-laws including the present applicant, who is husband of the deceased. In the post mortem report cause of death of the deceased is found asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. F.I.R was lodged and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. Prosecution story is bogus and a bundle of wrong facts. It is not natural and probable that after about 11 years of the marriage deceased committed suicide due to regular harassment. Applicant is the husband of the deceased and no specific role has been assigned to him in the alleged incident. Applicant was cooperative during investigation. It is further submitted that the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court till filing of police report in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10384 f 2025 vide order dated 21.5.2025. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the witnesses, whose statements were recorded during investigation, have supported the prosecution case. Sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. during investigation against the present applicant.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. From a perusal of the record, it appears that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant in the alleged incident. He was granted interim protection till filing of police report in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10384 f 2025 vide order dated 21.5.2025. No instance of misusing the said protection has been brought to the notice of this Court.
8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
9. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.
12. So far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.
11. The application is allowed accordingly.
12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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 make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.
(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)
November 4, 2025
safi
