Allahabad High Court

KAISAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The Court held that the applicants met the criteria for anticipatory bail and allowed the application.

Summary

The applicants, Kaisar and Shahmat, were charged in a 2019 case under several IPC offences including rioting, assault and attempt to murder. They filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, asserting innocence and willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed, contending that the applicants had previously been directed to seek regular bail and had not complied with that order. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the need to consider the nature of the allegations, the accused’s antecedents and flight risk. After evaluating the submissions and circumstances, the Court found that the criteria for anticipatory bail were satisfied. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and specific conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC in view of the pending charges under multiple IPC sections
Whether the prior direction to approach the trial court for regular bail affects the grant of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 308, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
Indian Penal Code
bail conditions
false implication
court discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2261 of 2026

Kaisar And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Vijay Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, 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. 89 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506,
308, 325 IPC, Police Station- Bhojjipura, District Bareilly, 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 applicants that
applicants are innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It
is further submitted that the charge sheet in the case has also been
submitted and they are ready to co-operate with the trial. No bailable
warrant and non-bailable warrant has been sent on the applicant. It was
also submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and
they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or
Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory
bail, they 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 and it has been submitted by him that the applicants had
approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.c. which was disposed of
with a direction to the applicant to approach the learned court concerned
for seeking regular bail but they have not complied with the order.
NABAIL No. 2261 of 2026
2

5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the
compromise had been taken place outside the Court and they have also
submitted.

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 applicants 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 applicants- Kaisar and Shahmat 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would
appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the
Court concerned;

(ii) The applicants 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 applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse
the liberty of bail.

(iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the
NABAIL No. 2261 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 applicants.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 18, 2026
Virendra

Digitally signed by :-
VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…