Israwati And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4339 of 2026

Israwati And 2 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Ashok Kumar Yadav, Rakesh Tripathi-I

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 71

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Tripathi-I, learned counsel for the applicants and Learned AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.27861 of 2025 (State Vs .Buneli Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 257 of 2025, under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2) BNS, P.S.- Kasaya, District - Kushinagar, during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that cross FIR has been lodged by both the sides. The informant is pattidar of the accused applicants. There was some altercation between the parties which led to cross fight. The FIR lodged by the informant shows that there were two injured. One injured has suffered simple injury whereas another has suffered grievous injury. The FIR lodged by the accused applicants no.2 was having five injured persons. During investigation, the accused applicants have not been arrested. The accused applicants have no criminal history. Charge sheet has been submitted. There is cross version of FIR. The accused applicants want to appear before the trial court but apprehending arrest.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants.

5. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon?ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is consistently held by Hon?ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

6. Considering the cross version of the FIR and cross fight between the parties as well as the accused applicants have not been arrested during investigation, the gravity of accusation and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

7. The applicants- Israwati, Buneli Yadav and Nikhil @ Aditya Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions :-

(i) The applicants 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

May 6, 2026

Krishna*