CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in the event of arrest, applicant Jitendra Kumar Gupta shall be released on interim bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the…
Judgment
: Aman Kumar Shrivastav : G.A. Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Heard Sri Aman Kumar Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 21.05.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1-State.
2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.
First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.0280 of 2017 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Hariyawan, District Hardoi.
As per contents of first information report, allegation levelled is that applicant while functioning on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, along with co-accused, allotted residential quarters under a Government Scheme to a majority of persons who were not entitled for same.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that in fact the finding in enquiry was erroneous since there was a mismatch in the allotment numbers of the allottees. It is submitted that applicant cooperated in investigation whereafter charge sheet has been filed in year 2019 itself and applicant, without any previous criminal history, does not have any warrant against him. 2 ABAIL No. 538 of 2025
Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail with submission that charge sheet was filed in year 2019 whereafter applicant is not appearing in trial.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that the aspect of illegal allotment with regard to residential accommodation would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. Applicant has admittedly cooperated in the investigation whereafter charge sheet has been filed and further undertakes to cooperate during trial. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS.
List this case on 03.07.2025 along with service report.
Objections may be filed in the meantime.
Learned Additional Government Advocate shall obtain instructions by the next date of listing regarding cooperation of applicant during trial
Operative part
In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in the event of arrest, applicant Jitendra Kumar Gupta shall be released on interim bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. "
3. Office has reported that on 02.07.2025 that the informant-opposite party no. 2, Sri Ashok Kumar, Assistant Director Fisheries has been transferred from Hardoi and therefore, the notice issued to him could not be served. 3 ABAIL No. 538 of 2025
4. The State has already filed counter affidavit opposing the anticipatory bail application annexing therewith the material collected during investigation and copy of the charge-sheet dated 22.06.2018.
5. It appears that the opposite party no. 2-informant had lodged an FIR by performing his official duties and his personal interest is not involved in the matter, therefore, the anticipatory bail application can be decided keeping in view the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the State.
6. There is no allegation of any misuse of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; the investigation already stands concluded.
7. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 21.05.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. In view of above, the interim order dated 21.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Anurag (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.