Allahabad High Court
INDRESH SINGH CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The court held that specific allegations in the FIR and the applicant's prior similar criminal history deny any ground for granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The applicant, Indresh Singh Chauhan, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a criminal case (Crime No. 0344/2025) involving multiple IPC offences. He claimed innocence, asserted that he was not named in the FIR, and argued that no specific allegation was made against him. The State contended that the FIR contains specific allegations against the applicant and highlighted his four prior criminal cases of a similar nature. The court examined the FIR and the applicant's criminal history, finding the allegations to be specific and the prior record relevant. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application, stating that no sufficient ground existed to grant bail and that the order does not prejudice the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC given specific allegations in the FIR.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the applicant was named or specifically implicated in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)(b), 115(2), 308(7), 316(3), 318(4), 351(3), 352, 61(2)(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- criminal history
- bail rejection
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2998 of 2026
Indresh Singh Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Padmaker Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajeev Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on
record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0344/2025 under Sections -
115(2), 352, 351(3), 308(7), 111(2)(b), 316(3), 318(4), 61(2)(a) BNS,
Police Station - Panki District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of
trial.
Submission has been made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant
has no concern with the offence alleged against him. The applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence has been
committed by the applicant. It has further been submitted that the
applicant was not named in the FIR. It has also been submitted that no
specific allegation has been made by the informant against the applicant
in the FIR. The applicant has criminal history of four cases, which have
been explained in the present application. In case the applicant is granted
anticipatory bail, there is no possibility of misusing the liberty of
anticipatory bail.
Learned A.G.A. has contended that the accusation levelled against the
applicant is specific.
NABAIL No. 2998 of 2026
2
Insofar as the allegations are concerned, the same is very much apparent
on record. In this case, bare perusal of the first information report itself
shows that the allegations are specific against the applicant. It is also
apparent that the applicant has four criminal history of similar nature. No
good ground is made out for anticipatory bail. In case the applicant has
any grievance, he may avail remedy before the appropriate forum.
Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.
It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing
on the merits of the case.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 6, 2026
S.K.
Digitally signed by :-
SWEETY KANOJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…