Rajesh vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Deputy Director ...
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32871
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where offences are triable by a Magistrate, allegations against the accused are general and vague, the accused offers an undertaking to cooperate in the trial, and no merit-based examination of the case is undertaken, anticipatory bail may be granted without entering into the merits of the case. Where anticipatory bail is granted, the accused must surrender before the concerned court within a specified period, and upon such surrender shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, with conditions as the trial court deems fit and proper, and default in compliance shall permit the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 341 of 2026
Rajesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. Thru. Deputy Director Dudhwa Tiger Reserve Lakhimpur Kheri And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rahul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 28
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Range Case No.16/2015-2016, under Sections 2, 27, 31, 35(6), 52, 51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act & Section 26, 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act, Range- Gaurifanta Range, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The aforesaid range case has been registered on 18.03.2016 against 28 named accused persons and 14 unnamed persons stating that the accused persons had cut some trees and caused damage to the natural habitat of wild animals.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that offences are triable by Magistrate. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no recovery has been made from the applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial.
5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel.
6. Considering the above aspects of the matter, perusal of the record, the offences are triable by Magistrate, general and vague allegations have been levelled against 42 persons (including the applicant), undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial, judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicants.
7. In view of the above, it is provided that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On such surrender, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
Any other condition which the trial court may deem fit and proper may also be imposed.
In case of default, it would be open for the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.
8. The application is allowed accordingly.
(Rajeev Bharti,J.)
May 7, 2026
Anand/-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free