Allahabad High Court
RANJEET KUMAR @ RANJEET @ LALLUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Ranjeet Kumar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No. 0337 of 2025. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that his name surfaced only in the confessional statement of co‑accused Sooraj Yadav, from whose possession stolen mobile phones were recovered. The State opposed the bail, arguing the material implicated the applicant. 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, flight risk, and 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 conditions to prevent evidence tampering, ensure cooperation, and prohibit leaving India without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC despite his name appearing in a co‑accused’s confessional statement
- Whether the material on record justifies denial of bail on grounds of flight risk or evidence tampering
- Whether the Court may impose conditions on anticipatory bail in the present case
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- bail conditions
- flight risk
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2026 of 2026
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet @ Lallu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deena Nath, Deepak Kumar, Himanshu
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ashish
Kumar Tripathi, 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. 0337 of 2025 under Sections 309(4), 317(2) of B.N.S., Police
Station Suriyanwa, District Bhadohi, 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 FIR and his name was surfaced
in the confessional statement of co-accused Sooraj yadav from whose
possession snatched mobile phones have been recovered. 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.
5. The name of the applicant has been surfaced from the confessional
statement of arrested co-accused Sooraj Yadav. Snatched and stolen mobile
NABAIL No. 2026 of 2026
2
phones are said to have been recovered from his possession.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet @
Lallu 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.
10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to
NABAIL No. 2026 of 2026
3
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…