Allahabad High Court
SHIKHA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the allegations were specific, prima facie supported, and of a serious nature.
Summary
The applicants, the wife of a deceased person and her family members, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 306 and 506 of the IPC. They claimed innocence, stating that the deceased died from poison ingestion and that no allegation existed against them until five days later when a false FIR was lodged. The State, represented by the learned A.G.A., argued that the investigation yielded audio‑video evidence and statements implicating the applicants, and that a charge‑sheet had already been filed. The Court examined the FIR, the material collected during investigation, and the charge‑sheet, finding the allegations specific and prima facie supported. Considering the seriousness of the accusations and the available evidence, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, noting that the decision does not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 CrPC when the FIR contains specific, prima facie supported allegations.
- Whether the material on record justifies denial of anticipatory bail in view of the gravity of the offences (IPC Sections 306 and 506).
- Whether the applicants pose a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing, warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 306, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC 306
- IPC 506
- false implication
- suicide
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 190 of 2026
Shikha And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Satish Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Rajeev Kumar Singh,
learned AGA for the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2024 under
Sections - 306, 506 IPC, Police Station -Sungadi, District - Pilibhit,
during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that applicant no.1 is wife of the deceased, while other
applicants are family members of applicant no.1. It is next submitted that
deceased died due to consumption of poisonous substance and after the
incident, inquest and post-mortem was conducted and till then, there was
no allegation against the applicants but after five days, a false story has
been cooked up and FIR of the present case was lodged and applicants
have been implicated in the present matter. He further submits that there
is no active role of instigation assigned to the applicants. It is also
submitted that in the event the applicants are granted anticipatory bail,
they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant no.1 is the wife of the
NABAIL No. 190 of 2026
2
deceased and other applicants are her family members and due to torture
of applicants, deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. Further,
during investigation, audio and video was collected by the I.O., in which
soon before his death, deceased held responsible to the applicants for his
death. Further, there is specific allegation has been levelled against the
applicants. He further submitted that the statements recorded during
investigation corroborate the prosecution case. It is also pointed out that
after due investigation, the charge-sheet has already been submitted
against the applicants.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the First Information
Report are specific and prima facie supported by the material collected
during investigation. The charge-sheet has already been filed against the
applicants after due investigation.
Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the material
available on record, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court does not find any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail to
the applicants. In case the applicants has any grievance with regard to the
proceedings, they may avail appropriate remedy.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
It is made clear that observations made in the instant anticipatory bail
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his
independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 6, 2026
KK Patel
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…