Allahabad High Court

BHUDEVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail is warranted and granted it to the applicant subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Bhudev under CrPC Section 482 in a case involving alleged offences under several IPC sections. The applicant claimed innocence, no prior criminal record, and that co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the facts. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the criteria for anticipatory bail—nature of offence, role of the accused, risk of tampering with evidence, and likelihood of fleeing—the Court found a case for bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, cooperation with investigation, non‑interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving India.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under CrPC Section 482.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or fleeing justice.
Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offences justify denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 191(2), 333, 3(5), 351(3)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
personal liberty
arrest
investigation
Uttar Pradesh
Indian Penal Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10179 of 2026

Bhudev
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avadh Raj Sharma, Rahul Sharma
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.209 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 109, 351(3),
333, 3(5) BNS, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, 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. A general role has been assigned to the
applicant of using lathis and sticks to assault the injured, who are two in
number. The injured has not received any injury, which can be
categorized to be dangerous to life. The other co-accused Rukma Devi,
Jashoda Devi and Mohar Pal Singh, have been enlarged on anticipatory
bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.09.2026,
08.09.2026 and 24.09.2026 respectively. The case of the applicant is
identical to that of co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail.
The applicant has no criminal antecedent 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
NABAIL No. 10179 of 2026
2

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
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,
NABAIL No. 10179 of 2026
3

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- Bhudev, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…