BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. Jyoti Yadav State of U.P & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Heard Sri Syed Abbas Shaukat Abidi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Yamunagar Commissionerate Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant. It is submitted that as per the FIR the allegation is that co-accused Rahul Gupta and Ravi Soni entered into an agreement with the first informant and as per the agreement co-accused Riya Gupta and Niharika Gupta were to be married to the first informant and his brother respectively. It is submitted that some monetary transaction also took place between the co-accused Rahul Gupta and Ravi Soni and the first informant regarding the above agreement. It is submitted that the applicant has been assigned the role of associates of the co-accused persons. It is submitted that as per the allegation in the FIR the terms of the agreement was not fulfilled and the marriage of the co-accused Riya Gupta and Niharika Gupta could not be materialized with the first 2 NABAIL No. 8386 of 2025 informant and his brother. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. 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. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

As per the allegation in the first information report, the allegation against the applicant is that co-accused Rahul Gupta and Ravi Soni entered into a written agreement with the first informant that co-accused Riya Gupta and Niharika Gupta shall be married to the first informant and his brother but the terms of the said agreement was not fulfilled and the marriage of co-accused Riya Gupta and Niharika Gupta could not be materialized with the first informant and his brother. Some monetary transaction is said to have taken place with the first informant and the applicant has been assigned the role of associates of the co-accused. The applicant is having no criminal history.

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, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the 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. 3 NABAIL No. 8386 of 2025

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Jyoti Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her 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 she 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 to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

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 herein. October 15, 2025 Abhishek (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad