Allahabad High Court

LALITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed as the applicant is not entitled to such relief.

Summary

The applicant, Lalit, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the B.N.S. in Crime No. 201 of 2026, alleging false implication in a road‑side accident that resulted in death on 26 July 2026. He argued that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay, that there is no evidence against him, and that he would cooperate with the investigation if released. The State opposed, stating that the deceased had identified the applicant as being present before his death and that witness statements and other material implicate him, making the case prima facie. The Court examined the extraordinary nature of anticipatory bail, citing several Supreme Court precedents that stress cautious exercise of this power, especially in serious offences. Considering the material on record and the applicant’s nomination in the FIR, the Court held that the applicant does not merit anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate exercise of the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail under Section 482 B.N.S. in the present facts?
Whether the applicant, being named in the FIR and with material evidence against him, is entitled to anticipatory bail?

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 482
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 B.N.S.
Section 438 CrPC
extraordinary power
bail jurisprudence
investigation
false implication
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10032 of 2026

Lalit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, Saurabh
Kumar Chaube
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anand Mohan, G.A.

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Anand Mohan, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the
State and perused the record.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No. 201 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) of B.N.S., Police
Station Bichhvan, District Mainpuri, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory
bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing
to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest
the applicant. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 26.07.2026,
whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after a long delay on 31.07.2026. The delay in
lodging the F.I.R. has not been satisfactorily explained. There is no evidence
against the applicant. The police initially found that this is a case of road
side accident. The applicant has been implicated on account of suspicion
only. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and
when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has
also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he
NABAIL No. 10032 of 2026
2

shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation,
and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. It is further
submitted that the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. The deceased
made a telephonic call to his wife prior to his death and stated that he was in
company of the applicant and co-accused Aditya and Vivek Kumar. During
course of investigation, statement of one Rohit Kumar was recorded who
stated that the deceased was in the company of the nominated accused
persons, including the applicant. The investigation is going on and the
investigating officer has collected sufficient material/evidence against the
present applicant, therefore, the present anticipatory bail application be
dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.

7. In the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. While called
upon to exercise the said power, the Court has to be very cautious as the
grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may
lead to miscarriage of justice. When warrant of arrest or proclamation is
issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoking extraordinary power. The
relevant paragraph no. 30 of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) is quoted as under:

"30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said
to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that
anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its
grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court
depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon
to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious
as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious
cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the
investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or
distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that
NABAIL No. 10032 of 2026
3

the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of
such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an
individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall
be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or
proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the
Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest
of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep
absconding is not entitled to such grant."

8. In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019)
9 SCC 24, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that arrest is a part of procedure
of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but
several other purposes. The power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of
B.N.S.S. has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail
should be granted only in exceptional cases. The relevant paragraph no. 69
of P. Chidambaram (supra) is reproduced as under:

"69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to
secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes.
Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same
has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should
be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred
upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as
to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant
fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant
of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in
the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be
circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be
granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances
exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. "

9. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant Patil and
another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, relevant paragraph nos.14 and 15
whereof read as under:
NABAIL No. 10032 of 2026
4

"14....................

74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the
investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may
be circumstances in which the accused may provide
information leading to discovery of material facts and
relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper
the investigation, Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance
between the individual's right to personal freedom and the
right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused
as to the material so far collected and to collect more
information which may lead to recovery of relevant
information........

6...........

75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation
intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v.
State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4
SCC 303: 2005 SCC (Cri) 933], it was held as under: (SCC
p. 313, para 19)

"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of
investigation intended to secure several
purposes. The accused may have to be
questioned in detail regarding various facets of
motive, preparation, commission and aftermath
of the crime and the connection of other persons,
if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances
in which the accused may provide information
leading to discovery of material facts. It may be
necessary to curtail his freedom in order to
enable the investigation to proceed without
hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons
connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent
his disappearance, to maintain law and order in
the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest
may become an inevitable part of the process of
NABAIL No. 10032 of 2026
5

investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest
cannot be gone into in an application under
Section 438 of the Code. The role of the
investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional
scope of interference by the court in the process
of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily
will not interfere with the investigation of a
crime or with the arrest of the accused in a
cognizable offence. An interim order restraining
arrest, if passed while dealing with an
application under Section 438 of the Code will
amount to interference in the investigation,
which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section
438 of the Code."

76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694: (2011) 1 SCC
(Cri) 514], the Supreme Court laid down the factors and
parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory
bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused must be
properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the
court must evaluate the available material against the
accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should
also consider whether the accusations have been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her.

77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 1 SCC 694: (2011) 1 SCC (Crl) 514] and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of
Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468], the
Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 386, para 19)
NABAIL No. 10032 of 2026
6

"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in
a serious offence are required to be satisfied and
further while granting such relief, the court must
record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail
can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the court is prima facie of
the view that the applicant has falsely been
enroped in the crime and would not misuse his
liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T.
Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T.
Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC
(Cri) 345], State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid
Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of
Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S.
Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain
Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain
Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305: (2009) 1 SCC
(Cri) 1].)"

Economic offences

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of
economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different
class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In
Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
[Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2
SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic
offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Constitution Bench of this Court held that
while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest 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 or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:-
NABAIL No. 10032 of 2026
7

"92.4. 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; equally
whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be
imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case,
and subject to the discretion of the court."

10. The applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. The deceased prior to his
death, stated to his wife that he is in the company of the applicant and other
co-accused who are nominated in the F.I.R. As per post-mortem report of the
deceased, he sustained as many as six injuries on his person. The cause of
death is haemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem injuries. The investigating
officer has collected sufficient material against the applicant including
statement of witnesses Rohit Kumar who stated that the deceased was last
seen with the applicant and other co-accused nominated in the F.I.R. Prima
facie the applicant is involved in the alleged offence.

11. In view of this Court, the parameters of granting regular bail and
anticipatory bail are different and it is not necessary that the grounds which
are sufficient to enlarge an accused on regular bail must also be sufficient to
enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Further, the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of
Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 also observed that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and therefore in view of this
Court being extraordinary power it cannot be used in routine manner.

12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory
bail.

13. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.

14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

15. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the
court concerned who shall forward a copy of this order to the
NABAIL No. 10032 of 2026
8

investigating officer concerned, for necessary compliance of this order.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
October 1, 2026
A.P. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…