Nikita Yadav v. Vinod Yadav), by the Civil Judge

1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neelesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 23461 of 2022, under Sections 354-B and 323 IPC, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the brother-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no.2. A matrimonial disputes exists between the brother of the applicant and the complainant-opposite party no.2. Earlier, the opposite party no.2-complainant lodged a complaint against her husband also. In the said case, the husband of the complainant has been summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 17119 of 2023 (Nikita Yadav Vs. Vinod Yadav), by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli. In order to harass the applicant, the instant prosecution has been instituted. In the alleged incident, the opposite party no.2 has not received any injury. No medical report is annexed with the complaint. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court vide order dated 19.06.2023. Counsel for applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. and the counsel for the opposite party-2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the categories being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinarily the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

7. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

8. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

9. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact that a matrimonial disputes exists between the brother of the applicant and the complainant-opposite party no.2; in the alleged incident, the opposite party no.2 has not received any injury; at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence, no custodial interrogation is required, and the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

10. In the event of arrest, the applicant Pramod Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on 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 on each date fixed in the matter 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 to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; (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 concerned court.

11. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

12. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Lbm/- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neelesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 23461 of 2022, under Sections 354-B and 323 IPC, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the brother-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no.2. A matrimonial disputes exists between the brother of the applicant and the complainant-opposite party no.2. Earlier, the opposite party no.2-complainant lodged a complaint against her husband also. In the said case, the husband of the complainant has been summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 17119 of 2023 (Nikita Yadav Vs. Vinod Yadav), by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli. In order to harass the applicant, the instant prosecution has been instituted. In the alleged incident, the opposite party no.2 has not received any injury. No medical report is annexed with the complaint. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court vide order dated 19.06.2023. Counsel for applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. and the counsel for the opposite party-2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the categories being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinarily the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

7. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

8. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

9. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact that a matrimonial disputes exists between the brother of the applicant and the complainant-opposite party no.2; in the alleged incident, the opposite party no.2 has not received any injury; at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence, no custodial interrogation is required, and the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

10. In the event of arrest, the applicant Pramod Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on 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 on each date fixed in the matter 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 to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; (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 concerned court.

11. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

12. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Lbm/- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad