Allahabad High Court
RANJIT SINGH BAGHELversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Ranjit Singh Baghel under Section 482 CrPC in a case registered under Section 409 IPC for alleged criminal breach of trust. The applicant claimed innocence, citing a three‑year delay in filing the FIR and his absence from work on the alleged date, supported by attendance records. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the facts. Relying on precedents that require assessment of the nature of the offence, the applicant's role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing, the Court found a case for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and conditions of cooperation, non‑interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving India.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC where the FIR was lodged after a substantial delay.
- Whether the applicant’s role and the likelihood of influencing the investigation or fleeing justify denial of bail.
- Whether the power to arrest should be exercised given the applicant’s cooperation and lack of criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 409
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 409 IPC
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- personal liberty
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10172 of 2026
Ranjit Singh Baghel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Shivangi
Bhargava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and 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.434 of 2026, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station
Bahjoi, District Sambhal, 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 the applicant. The applicant was a Clerk in Prathama
Bank. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 03.04.2023
whereas the FIR was lodged after more than three years on 21.08.2026.
The delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained by the
informant. It is further contended that the applicant was on casual leave
on 03.04.2023, copy of the attendance register of the staff of Prathama
Bank/UP Gramin Bank for the month of April, 2023 has been appended
as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. It is further contended that the informant
himself under his signature withdrew the amount of Rs.88,000/- and false
allegation has been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused
due to ulterior motive. The investigation is still pending and the applicant
would cooperate in the investigation. He has no criminal antecedent to his
credit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
NABAIL No. 10172 of 2026
2
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
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
NABAIL No. 10172 of 2026
3
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 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- Ranjit Singh Baghel, involved
in aforesaid case 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 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 him/her 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
Nitendra
Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…