NABAIL/599/2026 of DR RAMKESH @ RAMKESH YADAV Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 11 May 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0525 of 2025 under Sections 64, 333, 351(3) BNS, 2023, Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and, on the basis of false allegations, he has been implicated in the present matter. It is next submitted that the victim is a major and FIR of the present case was lodged after about 7 month without any plausible explanation of delay and there is no date and time was mentioned of the alleged incident. It is next submitted that applicant and victim belong to the same village and previous enmity also exists between both the sides. It is next submitted that actually on 18.11.2025 son of the informant made assault upon the applicant and in the incident. Applicant also sustained injuries and with regard to that incident applicant has moved an application for registration of FIR against son of informant and some unknown persons and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention to exert pressure upon the applicant to withdraw his case.

5. It is next submitted that the applicant has apprehension of arrest by the police at any time in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It is lastly submitted that, in case the applicant is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bairister Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dr Ramkesh @ Ramkesh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the anticipatory bail.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

8. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the trial.

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Dr Ramkesh @ Ramkesh Yadav, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the end of trial on 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 make himself/herself available before the Investigating Officer/Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the investigation/trial. NABAIL No. 599 of 2026

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he/she has passport, the same shall be deposited by him/her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. May 12, 2026 Neetu NABAIL No. 599 of 2026

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad