Allahabad High Court
VIJAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant, subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad entertained an anticipatory bail application filed by Vijay under Section 482 of the CrPC in connection with a criminal case (Crime No. 287 of 2025) involving alleged attempts to seize property using forged documents. The applicant claimed innocence and pointed out that co‑accused Ajay and Deepak had already been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed the relief, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences listed under various IPC sections. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court examined the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s antecedents, and the risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing. Finding that the criteria for anticipatory bail were satisfied, the Court granted bail with a personal bond and several conditions, reserving the right to cancel if breached.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC given the nature and gravity of the offences alleged.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing from justice.
- Whether the existence of a related civil dispute impacts the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 329(3), 329(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- Indian Penal Code
- property dispute
- forged documents
- civil suit
- bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2377 of 2026
Vijay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Chandra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Shiv Dutt Shukla, 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.287 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2)
329(3), 329(4), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Ankur Vihar, District
Ghaziabad 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 co-accused Ajay and Deepak have already been
granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide
order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 7898 of 2025. It is further submitted that the matter
relates to some civil dispute and the civil dispute is pending between the
parties. 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. 2377 of 2026
2
5. As per first information report, the applicant and other co-accused
persons have tried to grab the possession of the property of the first
informant on the basis of forged papers. A civil suit is pending between
the parties. The co-accused Ajay and Deepak have already been granted
anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
17.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
7898 of 2025.
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- Vijay 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 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
NABAIL No. 2377 of 2026
3
liberty of bail.
(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
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…