Deepak Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Aother

District - Lucknow. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 19.08.2025.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was earlier granted interim anticipatory bail by order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2723 of

2025. It is urged that the liberty so granted has not been misused. The applicant has furnished the requisite bonds, has been released on interim anticipatory bail, and has cooperated with the investigation. Since the charge sheet has already been filed, it is argued that no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant to jail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but has not disputed the factual position stated above. 2 ABAIL No. 1017 of 2025

6. The record has been perused, including the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2723 of 2025. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.6 of the application, which is an interim order dated 07.02.2020, granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No.3565 of 2020 (Deepak Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and others) for a period of two weeks. However, in the meantime, charge sheet has been filed with the co-operation of the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has co- operated in the investigation but after filing of the charge sheet, the present applicant could not appear before the trial court, but he is willing to co-operate in the trial proceedings, inasmuch as the very foundation of the F.I.R. is false and misconceived and charge sheet was filed without collecting the credible offence. Now the bailable warrant has been issued against the present applicant. Further, co- accused Ravi Prakash, having similar role, has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated

11.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2717 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that since the present applicant has co-operated in the investigation, is having his permanent address, there is no flight risk and has not misused the process of law during investigation and the applicant undertakes that if he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the anticipatory bail, he shall cooperate with the trial proceedings, therefore, applicant may be granted anticipatory bail in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submissions.

7. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for the applicant may file his rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter.

8. List and connect with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2717 of 2024, Ravi Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and Another.

9. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the fact that co-accused Ravi Prakash having similar role has been granted interim anticipatory bail, present applicant has cooperated in the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and he has given an undertaking that he shall 3 ABAIL No. 1017 of 2025 cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted and also considering the fact that there is no flight risk, as the applicant is having permanent address, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal (supra)."

7. Considering the facts that the applicant has not been arrested during investigation, the charge sheet has been filed, co-accused Ravi Prakash, having a similar role, has been granted interim anticipatory bail, and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant to cooperate in the trial, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, subject to his cooperation in the trial. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The applicant is hereby enlarged on anticipatory bail on the strength of the bonds already furnished by him pursuant to the interim order dated 12.12.2024, which shall remain in force during the pendency of the trial, with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court; (iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness; (iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance; (v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 15, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

District - Lucknow. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 19.08.2025.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was earlier granted interim anticipatory bail by order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2723 of

2025. It is urged that the liberty so granted has not been misused. The applicant has furnished the requisite bonds, has been released on interim anticipatory bail, and has cooperated with the investigation. Since the charge sheet has already been filed, it is argued that no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant to jail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but has not disputed the factual position stated above. 2 ABAIL No. 1017 of 2025

6. The record has been perused, including the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2723 of 2025. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.6 of the application, which is an interim order dated 07.02.2020, granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No.3565 of 2020 (Deepak Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and others) for a period of two weeks. However, in the meantime, charge sheet has been filed with the co-operation of the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has co- operated in the investigation but after filing of the charge sheet, the present applicant could not appear before the trial court, but he is willing to co-operate in the trial proceedings, inasmuch as the very foundation of the F.I.R. is false and misconceived and charge sheet was filed without collecting the credible offence. Now the bailable warrant has been issued against the present applicant. Further, co- accused Ravi Prakash, having similar role, has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated

11.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2717 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that since the present applicant has co-operated in the investigation, is having his permanent address, there is no flight risk and has not misused the process of law during investigation and the applicant undertakes that if he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the anticipatory bail, he shall cooperate with the trial proceedings, therefore, applicant may be granted anticipatory bail in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submissions.

7. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for the applicant may file his rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter.

8. List and connect with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2717 of 2024, Ravi Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and Another.

9. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the fact that co-accused Ravi Prakash having similar role has been granted interim anticipatory bail, present applicant has cooperated in the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and he has given an undertaking that he shall 3 ABAIL No. 1017 of 2025 cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted and also considering the fact that there is no flight risk, as the applicant is having permanent address, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal (supra)."

7. Considering the facts that the applicant has not been arrested during investigation, the charge sheet has been filed, co-accused Ravi Prakash, having a similar role, has been granted interim anticipatory bail, and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant to cooperate in the trial, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, subject to his cooperation in the trial. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The applicant is hereby enlarged on anticipatory bail on the strength of the bonds already furnished by him pursuant to the interim order dated 12.12.2024, which shall remain in force during the pendency of the trial, with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court; (iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness; (iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance; (v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 15, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench