Allahabad High Court
PRINCE KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that, given the absence of a specific role, the applicant’s antecedents, and the established principles governing anticipatory bail, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Prince Kumar Singh under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with FIR No. 0022 of 2026 alleging assault on a first informant. The applicant claimed innocence, asserted that no specific role was assigned to him, and disclosed his criminal history in a supplementary affidavit, undertaking to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the allegations. Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court examined the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. Finding that the criteria for granting anticipatory bail were satisfied, the Court allowed the application subject to a personal bond and specific conditions. The order directed that the applicant be released on bail if arrested, with provisions for cancellation upon breach of conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC
- Whether the applicant’s alleged role and antecedents justify the grant of bail
- Whether the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra apply to the present case
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- section 482 CrPC
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- assault
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2011 of 2026
Prince Kumar Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Kumar Kushwaha, Kritika Verma,
Raj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Mr. Rajkumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Manoj Gautam,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime
No. 0022 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station
Badagaon, District Commissionerate Varanasi with the prayer that in the event of
arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent
and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no specific
role has been assigned to the applicant. As per the FIR three accused persons
including the applicant are said to have assaulted the first informant as a result of
which victim has received multiple injuries on his persons. No injury is grievous in
nature. The applicant has explained entire criminal history in the supplementary
affidavit filed today. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate
during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or
Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not
misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all
conditions of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
6. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has explained
entire criminal history in the supplementary affidavit filed today. As per the FIR three
accused persons including the applicant are said to have assaulted the first informant
as a result of which victim has received multiple injuries on his persons.
7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
NABAIL No. 2011 of 2026
2
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation,
antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must
evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role
of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory
bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Prince Kumar Singh involved in the
aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal
bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the
trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;
(ii) 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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of
bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court
concerned.
11. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file
appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 18, 2026
Virendra
Digitally signed by :-
VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…