Allahabad High Court
BANTU @ HARENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Bantu @ Harendra, sought anticipatory bail under the Criminal Procedure Code in a case involving alleged assault under sections 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 352. He claimed innocence, stating that the allegations were generic and that co‑accused had already been granted regular bail. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the assault. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court examined the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents and the risk of flight or tampering. Finding that the injury was not life‑threatening and that the applicant had cooperated, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail with a personal bond and specific conditions. The order directed that the applicant be released on bail if arrested, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under the circumstances of the alleged assault.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing justice or tampering with evidence.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the allegations satisfy the criteria for anticipatory bail under the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 110, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- CrPC
- false implication
- bail conditions
- flight risk
- evidence tampering
- non‑violent offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2381 of 2026
Bantu @ Harendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mithilesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, 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. 41/2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 352
B.N.S., Police Station- Nagla Khangar, District- Firozabad, 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 no specific role has been assigned to the applicant
and only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all
the accused persons. It is further submitted that co-accused Teetu, Girish
and Manoj have already been granted regular bail by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court. None of the injuries of the injured are found to be
dangerous to life. 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. 2381 of 2026
2
5. As per first information report, five accused persons including the
present applicant are said to have assaulted the uncle of the first
informant, however, said injured has not received injuries which has been
dangerous to life.
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- Bantu @ Harendra 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
liberty of bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the
NABAIL No. 2381 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
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…