Allahabad High Court
VIKAS JAISWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to bond and conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Vikas Jaiswal under several sections of the B.N.S. and Section 60 of the Excise Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and that his name appeared only in the confessional statements of co‑accused who alleged he introduced them to persons capable of forging QR codes on liquor bottles. The State opposed, asserting that the applicant owned the liquor shop where the forged bottles were recovered. Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court evaluated the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s antecedents, and the risk of fleeing, and concluded that the criteria for anticipatory bail were satisfied. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and specific conditions, including non‑tampering with evidence and not leaving India without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under the applicable provisions of the B.N.S. and Excise Act.
- Whether the applicant's alleged involvement in the forged QR code liquor case warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 318(4), 336(2), 338, 345(3), 347(1), 61(2)
- Excise Act — s. 60
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- forgery
- QR code
- liquor
- excise law
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2012 of 2026
Vikas Jaiswal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shikhar Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. B.P.
Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Case Crime No. 474 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 345(3),
347(1), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 60 of Excise Act, Police Station
Sector-63 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, with the prayer that in
the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
3. 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 the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name
has been surfaced in the confessional statement of arrested co-accused
persons, namely, Kuldeep Singh and Rohtash Kumar. It is further
submited that some bottles of liquor with forged QR code. 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.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant is owner of the liquor shop
where the bottles of liquor with forged QR code have been recovered.
NABAIL No. 2012 of 2026
2
5. In reply learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
not owner of the shop and he said to have introduced the co-accused
persons to the persons who can make forged QR code.
6. The name has been surfaced in the confessional statement of arrested
co-accused persons, namely, Kuldeep Singh and Rohtash Kumar. The
applicant is said to have introduced the co-accused persons to the persons
who can make forged QR code.
7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of 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- Vikas Jaiswal 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
NABAIL No. 2012 of 2026
3
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…