Allahabad High Court
SACHINversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, finding that the statutory criteria for such relief were satisfied.
Summary
The applicant, Sachin, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, in connection with Crime No. 69 of 2026. He claimed innocence, stating that the FIR was lodged against an unknown person and his name appeared only in the confessional statements of co‑accused, with no material seized except Rs.1,21,000 from another accused. The State opposed the bail, but the court, relying on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, considered the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s clean record, and the lack of incriminating evidence. The court found that the criteria for granting anticipatory bail were satisfied and, without expressing an opinion on the merits, allowed the application. Consequently, the applicant was released on anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and several conditions, including non‑tampering with evidence and not leaving India without permission.
Issues considered
- What are the criteria for granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC in the present case?
- Whether the applicant's involvement, as indicated only in co‑accused statements, justifies denial of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 318(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Information Technology Act — s. 66C, 66D
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- Information Technology Act
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2099 of 2026
Sachin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Dubey, Saumitra Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
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.69 of 2026, under Sections 318(4) of B.N.S. and Section
66C and 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Highway, District Mathura, 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 first information report has been lodged against
unknown and during investigation, the name of the applicant has surfaced
in the confessional statement of arrested co-accused persons. It is further
submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered except cash
amount of Rs.1,21,000/- from the possession of the arrested co-accused
person Haseev. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no
criminal history. 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.
NABAIL No. 2099 of 2026
2
5. First information report has been lodged against unknown and during
investigation, the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional
statement of arrested co-accused persons and nothing incriminating has
been recovered except cash amount of Rs.1,21,000/- from the possession
of the arrested co-accused person Haseev. It is also submitted that the
applicant is having no criminal history.
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- Sachin involved in the aforesaid
case crime 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 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. 2099 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 19, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…