Allahabad High Court
KISHOR SINGH CHANDELversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that, considering the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents and the Supreme Court’s precedent, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by journalist Kishor Singh Chandel, who was charged under IPC sections 386, 504, 506 and 500 for alleged extortion. The applicant argued that he had not been served with any summons or warrant, had no knowledge of the proceedings, and was willing to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations. Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court evaluated the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents, and the risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence. Finding that the criteria for anticipatory bail were satisfied, the Court granted bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and specific conditions, and ordered that any breach could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving alleged extortion and related IPC offences
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior summons, his antecedents, and willingness to cooperate justify the grant of anticipatory bail
- What conditions may be imposed on the anticipatory bail to prevent misuse and ensure trial cooperation
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 386, 500, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- extortion
- journalist
- IPC sections 386 504 506 500
- Supreme Court precedent
- bail conditions
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2083 of 2026
Kishor Singh Chandel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raksha Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Raksha Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Shukla,
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.
236 of 2008 under Sections 386, 504, 506, 500 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District Banda with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released
on bail.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was granted
interim protection from arrest during investigation and after submission of
chargesheet, applicant was never served with any summon, bailable warrant or non
bailable warrant and he had no knowledge of the proceedings of the case and now he
has come to know about the proceedings and he is ready and willing to co-operate in
the trial. It is further submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in the memo of application and he undertakes to co-operate during trial and
to appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is
granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all
conditions of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. As per the FIR, applicant who is a journalist by profession, is said to have
demanded extortion money from the first informant by extending threat to publish
negative articles against him. Applicant was granted interim protection from arrest
during investigation and chargesheet was submitted in the year 2008 itself, however, it
is submitted that applicant was never served with any summon, bailable warrant or
non bailable warrant and now he has come to know about the proceedings and he is
ready and willing to co-operate in the trial.
NABAIL No. 2083 of 2026
2
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, the Court must consider nature and gravity of
accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and
that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and
the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.
8. Considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, settled principle of
law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature
of accusation, role of applicants and 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 Kishor Singh Chandel involved in the
aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 shall appear before the trial Court
either in person or through counsel on each and every date fixed unless exempted by
the Court concerned and shall not seek any undue adjournment;
(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.
February 26, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…