Allahabad High Court
MULCHANDRA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is warranted and granted to the applicants.
Summary
The petitioners, Mulchandra and Sunil, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with FIR No. 13 of 2026 alleging assault with a hard blunt object and a sharp-edged weapon. They claimed innocence, asserted that no specific role was assigned to them, and undertook to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the seriousness of the alleged assault. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the need to consider the nature of the accusation, antecedents, and risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence. After evaluating the submissions and facts, the Court found that the criteria for anticipatory bail were satisfied. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and four conditions, including non‑tampering with evidence and not leaving India without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 CrPC in view of the nature and gravity of the assault allegations.
- Whether the applicants pose a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or otherwise misusing bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 351(3), 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- assault
- bail conditions
- false implication
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2358 of 2026
Mulchandra And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants today in
Court, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Umashankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Case Crime No. 13 of 2026, under Sections 190, 191(2), 115(2), 351(3),
109(1) BNS, Police Station- Dadon, District- Aligarh, with the prayer that
in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
4. 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 no specific role has been assigned to any of
the applicants and the injuries received by the injured are simple in
nature. 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.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail.
NABAIL No. 2358 of 2026
2
6. As per first information report, five persons including the present
applicants are said to have assaulted the victim by hard and blunt object
along with sharp-edged weapon, however, the injuries received by the
injured has been found simple in nature.
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, 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.
8. 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.
9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
10. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Mulchandra and Sunil
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.
NABAIL No. 2358 of 2026
3
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 19, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…