Allahabad High Court
DR ANANT KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Dr. Anant Kumar Sharma, filed an anticipatory bail application under CrPC Section 482 fearing arrest in a case (Crime No. 652 of 2026) involving alleged assault by a vehicle he owned. The FIR alleged that the driver, after a verbal spat, reversed the car and struck the informant, causing non‑grievous injuries; the applicant was not named in the FIR but was identified as the vehicle owner. The applicant’s counsel argued that the incident, captured on CCTV, did not constitute an attempt to murder and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents. The informant’s counsel contended that the applicant deliberately tried to kill the informant and that eyewitnesses existed, urging denial of bail. The Court examined the facts, noted the lack of grievous injury, the applicant’s clean record, and the absence of his name in the FIR, and consequently granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR but is alleged to be the vehicle owner.
- Whether the alleged conduct amounts to an attempt to murder or a lesser offence under the IPC.
- Whether the nature of injuries and the applicant’s clean criminal record justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 281, 324(4), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- CrPC 482
- IPC sections 281 109 324 352
- false implication
- road accident
- non‑grievous injury
- clean criminal record
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10182 of 2026
Dr Anant Kumar Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ronak Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devendra Dahma, G.A., Mukesh
Kumar Upadhyay, Vimal Kumar
Tripathi
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Shri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, Learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Raunak Chaturvedi, Learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Devendra Dahma, Learned counsel appearing for the informant 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.652 of 2026, under Sections 281, 109 (1),
324(4), 352 of B.N.S, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh, with a
prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his
arrest in the abovementioned case.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has contended
that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not
named in the F.I.R. The allegation is that an unknown person while
driving his car carelessly had nearly hit the informant and on the objection
raised by the informant, the driver of the said vehicle reversed his car and
hit the informant, which led to the informant receiving serious injuries.
Learned Senior Advocate has contended that there is some C.C.T.V.
footage of the incident, which is inconsistent with the averments made in
the F.I.R. None of the injuries sustained by the informant have been
opined to be grievous in nature or dangerous to life. Learned Senior
Advocate has further submitted that assuming without admitting that the
NABAIL No. 10182 of 2026
2
incident had occurred, then it is at best a case of road rage and cannot be
considered to be a case of attempt to murder. The applicant has no
criminal antecedents.
4. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail and has contended that the applicant in an attempt to kill
the informant had reversed his car and hit the informant which led to him
receiving injuries. The informant's life was saved due to divine
providence and the applicant had left no stone unturned to kill the
informant. Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that
there are eye-witnesses to the incident. The applicant may be required for
custodial interrogation and recoveries. He may not be considered for grant
of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any criminal antecedents
of the applicant.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
7. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The recital in the case diary
with respect to the C.C.T.V. footage indicates that there may have been
some verbal spat between the informant and the driver of the vehicle in
question. It is during this verbal argument that the car in question was
reversed and the driver hit the informant which led to the informant
falling in a ditch. The informant has suffered two injuries which have not
been opined to be grievous in nature or dangerous to life. The applicant is
stated to be the owner of the vehicle in question. The applicant is an
anesthesiologist of repute and is presently working as Consultant
Anesthesiologist at Kailash Hospital, Khurja. He does not have any
criminal antecedents.
8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
NABAIL No. 10182 of 2026
3
10. In the event of the arrest of the applicant-Dr Anant Kumar Sharma,
he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory
bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety 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. that 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. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;
iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 30, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…