Allahabad High Court
Piyush Kumar Verma @ Ankur Verma vs State Of U.P. on 25 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:211103
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9768 of 2025
Piyush Kumar Verma @ Ankur Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Shaleen Gupta, Sikandar B. Kochar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sikandar B. Kochar and Sri Shaleen Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uma Shankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 386 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Nauganwa Sadat, District Amroha with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant was not arrested during investigation and he was served with a notice issued under Section 41A CrPC and chargesheet has already been submitted. It is further submitted that matter relates to commercial dispute. 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.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. The applicant is not named in the FIR. As per the allegation in the first information report, a motorcycle was shown to be sold on OLX for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and when the first informant contacted the co-accused Prayash Kumar and the deal was final and Rs. 50,000/- was transferred to co-accused Prayash Kumar but the said motorcycle was not delivered to him. The applicant was not arrested during investigation and his name has surfaced during investigation. Chargesheet has already been submitted.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Piyush Kumar Verma @ Ankur Verma involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 he 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.
11. 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) November 25, 2025 Abhishek