Allahabad High Court
ANKIT @ SHASHIKANT TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial.
Summary
The applicant, Ankit @ Shashikant Tiwari, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case where he was alleged to have opened fire on an informant, though no injury was reported. The applicant argued that the allegation was false, the investigation was pending, and his prior criminal history—four cases, two with final reports, one dropped, and one under the Arms Act on bail—should not preclude bail. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The court noted the lack of injury, the pending investigation, and the applicant's willingness to comply with bail conditions. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail until the trial concludes, imposing standard conditions and a personal bond with sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the applicant's prior criminal history.
- Whether the alleged offence involving firing without injury warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the pending investigation and risk of arrest justify granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 351(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- no injury offence
- criminal history
- pending investigation
- bail conditions
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. - 3342 of 2026
Ankit @ Shashikant Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avneesh Mishra, Vikrant Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Vikrant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajnikant Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 91 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 351(3) BNS,
Police Station Atraulia, District Azamgarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on
anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation
applicant opened fire upon the informant but admittedly none sustained any
injury and therefore, it is a case of no injury and this fact suggests that on the
basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter.
5. He further submitted that investigation of the case is still pending and
police is continuously trying to arrest the applicant.
6. He further submitted that however applicant is having criminal history of
four other cases but out of four cases in two cases final reports have been
submitted and in one case proceeding has been dropped and in one case
relates to Arms Act applicant is on bail.
7. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, merely on the basis of previous criminal history
NABAIL No. 3342 of 2026
2
of applicant his anticipatory bail application should not be dismissed.
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but
could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of
the case.
10. However, as per allegation applicant opened fire upon the informant and
even he is having criminal history of four cases but admittedly none
sustained any injury and it is a case of no injury.
11. Further criminal history of the applicant has been explained and it
reflects in two cases final reports have been submitted and in one another
case proceeding has been dropped and in case relates to Arms Act, applicant
is on bail .
12. Further, investigation of the case is still pending and apprehension of
arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in
this case, till conclusion of trial.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
15. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Ankit @ Shashikant Tiwari,
involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till
conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned,
with the conditions that:-
i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
ii. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence;
NABAIL No. 3342 of 2026
3
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the
court;
iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;
16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned
shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
17. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to
the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming
his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
May 5, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…