Allahabad High Court

NISHU @ BHUVNESH SWAROOPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail with conditions.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court entertained an anticipatory bail application filed by Nishu @ Bhuvnesh Swaroop in a case arising from a delayed FIR concerning a death on 10‑10‑2025. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR was lodged nine days after the alleged incident and that the medical reports did not substantiate a fatal head injury, the cause of death being hypovolemic shock. The State opposed bail, pointing to the applicant’s name in the FIR and the issuance of non‑bailable warrants, but did not dispute his minor prior offences. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s observations in Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) and noting the discrepancy in medical evidence, the excessive FIR delay, and the fact that a co‑accused on similar facts had been granted bail, held that the applicant was not an absconder. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions and a personal bond.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant is specifically named in the FIR and non‑bailable warrants have been issued.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the inconsistency between medical reports create reasonable doubt justifying bail.
Whether the applicant can be deemed an absconder under the circumstances.
Whether the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC or the provisions of Section 438 CrPC are applicable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482, 82
Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 105, 115(2), 127(2), 131, 191(2), 333, 351(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
FIR delay
medical evidence
non‑bailable warrant
Section 438 CrPC
Section 482 CrPC
IPC offences
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 1696 of 2026

Nishu @ Bhuvnesh Swaroop
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalit Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case No.285 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime No.514 of
2025, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(2), 127(2), 131, 333, 105 BNS,
Police Station- Goverdhan, District Mathura, with a prayer to enlarge him
on anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. He states that a delayed FIR has
been lodged on 11.10.2025 regarding an incident said to have taken place
on 26.09.2025. Initially, the FIR was lodged for offences under Sections
115(2), 352, 351(2), 127(2), 131, 333, 103(1), 191(2) BNS; however,
after investigation, the case has been converted to one under Section
105(1) BNS. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that although
the applicant has been named in the FIR, no specific role of causing any
fatal injury to the deceased has been assigned to him. He further submits
that the postmortem examination report shows injuries on the non-vital
part; however, in the brain, a sub dural haematoma size 2cm x 1 cm was
found over fronto parietal part of skull and the cause of death that has
been opined is hypovolemic shock. The deceased has died on 10.10.2025
NABAIL No. 1696 of 2026
2

after he had returned home, being discharged from the hospital where he
was being treated.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that the applicant has a
criminal history of two cases involving minor offences and is not a
previous convict. The similarly situated co-accused Hemesh has been
granted regular bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.5353 of 2026 vide order dated 23.02.2026. The case of the applicant
stands on a similar footing.

6. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that
the applicant has been specifically named in the FIR. The deceased has
died as a result of the injuries sustained in the incident. He, however, does
not dispute the explanation given by the applicant with respect to the
previous criminal cases. He has stated that non bailable warrants have
been issued against the applicant on 17.12.2025 and as such, no
indulgence may be accorded to him.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he had moved his
anticipatory bail application for the offences including offence under
Section 103(1) BNS and his anticipatory bail application got dismissed on
02.12.2025, however, in the meantime the case was converted under
Section 105(1) BNS for which another anticipatory bail application was
moved, which was lastly rejected on 03.02.2026. Therefore, he contends
that the applicant is not an absconder and had approached the Court
seeking protection from his false implication.

8. I have heard the Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned AGA.

9. The Supreme Court in Asha Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024
SCC OnLine 5633 in paragraph 8 has noted and opined as thus:

"Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under

Section 82 of the Cr.P.,C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on

considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail"

10. In the opinion of the Court, the applicant was availing the remedies
available to him and it is in the meantime that non bailable warrants have
NABAIL No. 1696 of 2026
3

been issued. The applicant may not be considered to be an absconder.

11. A perusal of the first medical examination report dated 26.09.2025,
which has been produced before this Court by the Learned AGA,
indicates that the deceased has not sustained any head injury. The relevant
part of the first medical examination report dated 26.09.2025 is
reproduced herein below:-

"(1) Lacerated wound of Size 2 cm x 0.5 cm over thumb web of Lt. hand with blood and

swelling with tenderness present.

(2) Lacerated would of size 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm over base of index finger of Lt. hand with fresh

blood present.

(3) Complaint of pain and swelling over left knee. Tenderness present.

(4) Complaint of pain over Lt. Forearm"

12. It is the version of the FIR itself that the deceased was treated in the
hospital from 26.09.2025 to 03.10.2025. He is said to have died on
10.10.2025. The cause of death has been opined to be hypovolemic shock.
Prima facie, it appears to this Court that the injuries mentioned in the first
medical examination report dated 26.09.2025 do not correspond to the
cause of death as opined in the postmortem examination report. The
similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by this Court.

13. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
case and the excessive delay in lodging of the FIR, I deem it appropriate
to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

14. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

15. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Nishu @ Bhuvnesh
Swaroop, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on
anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the
police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-
NABAIL No. 1696 of 2026
4

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;

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

17. 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.)
March 19, 2026
A. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…