Allahabad High Court
MUTTU ALIAS MUKESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Summary
The applicant, Muttu alias Mukesh, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Sections 303(2), 317(2) and 305(Ka) of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that the FIR was lodged against an unknown person and his name appeared only in the confessional statement of a co‑accused, and he has no prior criminal record. 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 antecedents and the risk of fleeing. Finding that the applicant satisfied the criteria for anticipatory bail, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and several conditions, including not tampering with evidence and not leaving India without permission. The prosecution was warned that any breach could lead to cancellation of the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC in view of the allegations and his lack of criminal history
- Whether the material on record, including the co‑accused’s confessional statement, justifies granting anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 303(2), 305(Ka), 317(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2107 of 2026
Muttu Alias Mukesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandan Yadav, Dipanshu Kushwaha,
Prashant Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Dipanshu Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
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.70 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 305(Ka) of
B.N.S., Police Station Attrasuiya, District Prayagraj, 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 the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional
statement of arrested co-accused Rahul. 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. 2107 of 2026
2
5. The first information report has been lodged against unknown and
during investigation and the name of the applicant has surfaced on the
confessional statement of Rahul and 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- Muttu Alias Mukesh 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.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the
NABAIL No. 2107 of 2026
3
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…