Allahabad High Court

SMT RAJVATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, holding that the circumstances did not justify denial of bail under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Rajvati under Section 482 CrPC in connection with a FIR alleging her participation in an assault on police officers during a public disturbance. The applicant, a woman with no prior criminal record, claimed she was falsely implicated and that the sole identification against her came from an interested witness, Rampal, via a video. The State opposed bail, citing the video identification of the applicant pelting stones at police. The Court noted the applicant’s gender, lack of a specific role in the incident, and the questionable reliability of the identification, and found no injury to police that would constitute danger to life. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, emphasizing that the order is limited to the bail application and not an opinion on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC despite video identification by an interested witness.
Whether the applicant’s status as a lady and lack of criminal antecedents justify the grant of bail.
Whether the allegations of assault on police officers warrant denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 121(1), 125, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 309(4), 324(3), 351(3), 352, 62
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act — s. 2, 3

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
female applicant
false implication
video identification
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10037 of 2026

Smt Rajvati
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kuldeep Johri
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and Learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 319 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
121(1), 109, 352, 351(3), 125, 324(3), 190, 309(4) and 62 of the B.N.S.,
2023 and Sections 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, Police Station – Milak, District Rampur, with a prayer to enlarge her
on anticipatory bail, as the applicant apprehends her arrest in the aforesaid
case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is a
lady. She has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has no
criminal antecedents. A General role has been given to her. The
allegations are that one Rampal had called up the emergency number 112,
on which the police is said to have arrived at the spot. The persons present
at the spot misbehaved with the police and then also assaulted the police
personnel and destroyed the police vehicles. Learned counsel has stated
that there was a dispute amongst two parties. The applicant does not
belong to either of the parties and has been falsely implicated in the case
due to village party bandi.

4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended
that there is a video also available with the police and in the said video the
complainant Rampal has identified the applicant as one of the accused
who were present and pelting stones in the incident. Learned A.G.A. does
NABAIL No. 10037 of 2026
2

not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties.

6. The applicant is a lady. No specific role has been assigned to the
applicant. The identification of the applicant on the basis of the video has
been done by Rampal who is an interested witness. None of the police
personnel have received any injury which may be categorized to be
dangerous to life. The FIR has been lodged by the police personnel and
even in the FIR, the identity of the assailants has been fixed on the
information given by Rampal.

7. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, especially
the fact that the applicant is a lady, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the
applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Smt. Rajvati, involved in the
aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, on her
furnishing a personal bond and surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned, with the following conditions:-

i. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;

iii. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court;

iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
NABAIL No. 10037 of 2026
3

considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
October 1, 2026
Kushal

Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…