Allahabad High Court
Ritesh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 25 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:210903
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7710 of 2025
Ritesh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Himanshu Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Jayendra Kumar Mishra, Keerti Mishra, Ravikant Tiwari
HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Ritesh and Tarun @ Tarun Yadav @ Pammu seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 822 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 308, 324, 336, 352, 325 IPC, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants 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 applicants and the applicants have not been declared absconder. It is also submitted that the applicant no.1 is named in the F.I.R. whereas the applicant no.2 is not named. It is also submitted the applicants have not been assigned role of causing grievous injury to the injured Ishwari Devi, who was assaulted by the accused persons. It is also submitted that she was also assaulted on her head with intention to kill by accused Nagesh. It is further submitted that alleged offences are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In this matter, applicant no.1 is named in the F.I.R. whereas the applicant no.2 is not named. It also appears that the applicants have not been assigned role of causing grievous injury to the injured Ishwari Devi. Alleged offences are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years.
7. 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.
8. 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 170 CrPC 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 173 CrPC. 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 87 CrPC 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 170 CrPC, 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."
9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants 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 applicants till the end of trial.
10. The application is allowed accordingly.
11. In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 applicants shall make themselves available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.
(ii) The applicants 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 applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.
(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)
November 25, 2025
safi
