Allahabad High Court
RAVENDRA KUMAR HARIJANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is warranted and granted to the applicant.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC filed by Ravendra Kumar Harijan in a complaint case alleging offences under IPC sections 392, 323, 504 and 506. The applicant claimed innocence, no prior criminal record and willingness to cooperate, while the informant and the State argued that the applicant had participated in an assault and robbery. Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court examined the nature and gravity of the accusations, the applicant’s antecedents and the risk of fleeing. After weighing the submissions, the Court found that the criteria for granting anticipatory bail were satisfied. Consequently, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and three sureties, imposing conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, misuse of liberty, and travel abroad without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving IPC sections 392, 323, 504 and 506.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and willingness to cooperate outweigh the seriousness of the alleged offences.
- Whether the precedents on anticipatory bail, particularly Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, apply to the present facts.
- Whether the applicant should be directed to seek regular bail instead of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 392, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
- high court
- bail conditions
- false implication
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2351 of 2026
Ravendra Kumar Harijan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Giri, Santosh Singh, Sunil
Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Singh Kushwaha
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Pawan Giri, Shri Santosh Singh and Shri Sunil Kumar
Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Ram Singh Kushwaha, learned
counsel for the first informant, Shri Chandra Shekhar Saran, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Complaint Case No.104 of 2021, under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 of
I.P.C., Police Station Jhunsi, 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 applicant has been summoned to face trial in a
complaint case and he is ready and willing to cooperate in the trial. It is
further submitted that the entire allegations in the complaint is false. 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 counsel for the first informant has opposed
NABAIL No. 2351 of 2026
2
the application for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted by him that
the applicant is not cooperated in the trial. It is further submitted that the
applicant and other co-accused persons are said to have assaulted the
complainant, who is the principal of I.T.I. College and they have also
looted Rs.15,000/- cash from him on gun point. He further submits that
the applicant had approached before this Court by filing an application
under Article 227, which has been disposed of with a direction to the
applicant to approach before the learned court concerned for regular bail
in accordance with the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the remedy
available in law cannot be curtailed by any judicial order.
6. Learned AGA has also opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
7. Applicant has been summoned to face trial in a complaint case and he
is ready and willing to cooperate in the trial. As per allegations in the
complaint, the applicant and other co-accused persons are said to have
assaulted the complainant, who is the principal of I.T.I. College and they
have also looted Rs.15,000/- cash from him on gun point. It is also
submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
NABAIL No. 2351 of 2026
3
11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ravendra Kumar Harijan
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
Court concerned.
12. 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…