Allahabad High Court
NIRDOSH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that, as the applicant’s role is indistinguishable from co‑accused who were granted bail and the settled principles for anticipatory bail are met, he is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad entertained an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC filed by Nirdosh Kumar, who was implicated in a case involving offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 342 and 120‑B IPC. The applicant claimed innocence and pointed out that co‑accused Sunil Kumar Sachan and Riya Sachan had already been granted regular and anticipatory bail respectively, arguing that his role was indistinguishable from theirs. The State opposed the bail, contending that the accused had received money on a false promise of a government job. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court examined the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s antecedents and the risk of fleeing. Finding that the criteria for anticipatory bail were satisfied, the Court allowed the application, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposing standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC given the nature of the allegations and his alleged role in the offence.
- Whether the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra are applicable to the present bail application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 342, 406, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
- false promise job scam
- bail conditions
- High Court of Allahabad
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2027 of 2026
Nirdosh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awaneesha Kumar, Narendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Narendra Singh, 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. 65 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 342, 120-
B IPC, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, 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 co-accused Sunil Kumar Sachan has been
granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
03.12.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.-18591 of 2025 and
another co-accused Riya Sachan has already been granted anticipatory
bail by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026 passed in Crl. Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No.-208 of 2026. The role
of the applicant is not distinguishable from the co-accused person. 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
NABAIL No. 2027 of 2026
2
anticipatory bail.
5. The applicant and the co-accused persons are said to have received
money from the first informant on the false promise of securing a
government job to him. Sunil Kumar Sachan and Riya Sachan have
already been granted bail and role of applicant is not distinguishable from
the co-accused persons.
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- Nirdosh Kumar 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.
NABAIL No. 2027 of 2026
3
(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 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…