Allahabad High Court

ANIKETversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that, given the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, the non‑grievous nature of the injuries, and no risk of tampering or absconding, anticipatory bail must be granted subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Aniket in a case under Sections 191(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1) and 342(4) of the IPC. The applicant claimed innocence, no prior criminal record, and pledged cooperation with the investigation, while the State opposed the bail but did not dispute the facts. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that require assessment of the nature of the offence, the applicant's role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing, the Court found that the circumstances justified bail. The Court held that there was no likelihood of the applicant influencing witnesses or absconding. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond, sureties, and conditions restricting interference with the investigation and travel abroad.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under the circumstances of the case
Whether the nature of the alleged offences and the applicant's role warrant denial of bail
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing the jurisdiction

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 191(2), 342(4), 351(3), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 438 CrPC
Indian Penal Code
personal liberty
bail conditions
Uttar Pradesh
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10150 of 2026

Aniket
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

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

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No.674 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 342(4)
B.N.S., Police Station - Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, with a prayer to grant
him anticipatory bail.

3. 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
him. The FIR was lodged against four named accused persons, including
the applicant, and 4-5 unknown persons. The injured, who are two in
number, have received cumulatively only three injuries. None of the
injuries are grievous in nature or dangerous to life. It is further contended
that the identically situated co-accused, Abhiraj Singh, has been enlarged
on anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
11.09.2026 in NABAIL No. 9067 of 2026. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents to his credit. 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 shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with
the investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed
NABAIL No. 10150 of 2026
2

by the Court.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

5. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the
record.

6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1
Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The
occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is
a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely
because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that
arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of
the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of
a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the
accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the
officer to arrest the accused.

8. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role
of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without
NABAIL No. 10150 of 2026
3

expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following
directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Aniket, involved in the aforesaid
case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on
his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police
station concerned or the court concerned.

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during
investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(iii) 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 her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer; and

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.

10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
applicant, before the concerned court.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 29, 2026
Radhika

Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…