AJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10176 of 2026

Ajay Kumar
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ravindra Kumar Mishra, Satya Prakash
                                Mishra
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- Ajay
Kumar in Case Crime No.96 of 2025, under Section 3/7 Essential
Commodities Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District firozabad, 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 is not nominated in the FIR;
he has been made accused in the present case being the owner of the
vehicle no.UP83AT1095. It is further contended by the learned counsel
for the applicant that the vehicle in question has already been sold out to
co-accused Praveen Kumar, however, name in the registration certificate
has not been changed by the authorities inspite of the application moved
by the applicant. It is further contended that the offences are punishable
below 7 years of imprisonment, therefore, the applicant was not arrested
during course of investigation. Now, the chargesheet has been submitted
in the present case on 07.09.2025. The applicant has been made accused
only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused, which is
not admissible in evidence. The cognizance has been taken by the court
                                                    NABAIL No. 10176 of 2026
                               2


concerned and the applicant is ready to appear on the date fixed. Since the
applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the
investigation has already been completed by the investigating officer,
therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Learned
counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant undertakes to
cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required by 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 trial, 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 rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

6. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no
allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the
investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant.

7. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :

     "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding
     principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under
     Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or
     the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has
     to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in
     accordance with the procedure laid down under Section
     173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the
     Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a
     process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks
     to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is
     required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section
     87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall
                                                       NABAIL No. 10176 of 2026
                                 3


     not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of
     due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in
     sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of
     caution.

     12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general
     principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite
     observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in
     the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose
     custody was not required during the period of investigation. In
     such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released
     on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
     during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself
     sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale
     has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged
     and free for many years and has not even been arrested during
     investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be
     incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
     be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We
     could not agree more with this."

8. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my
view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of
trial in the matter.

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ajay Kumar, 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 court concerned;

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.
                                                                                        NABAIL No. 10176 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    (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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; 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