Allahabad High Court
KISHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The Court held that the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of immediate arrest justified granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC, notwithstanding the applicant’s past conviction.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court entertained an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC filed by Kishan Singh, who was accused of offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 351(3) of the IPC. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, that the alleged transaction was a loan, and highlighted a delay of more than one and a half years before the FIR was lodged under Section 173(4) CrPC. The State opposed bail but could not refute the factual contentions. The Court noted the unusual delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any immediate arrest, and considered the applicant’s prior conviction under Section 406 IPC as explained in the bail petition. Balancing these factors, the Court granted anticipatory bail until the trial concludes, subject to standard conditions. The order expressly stated that the bail does not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 CrPC despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR under Section 173(4) CrPC warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the applicant’s prior conviction under Section 406 IPC should preclude anticipatory bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed on bail are sufficient to safeguard the investigation and trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4), 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 406
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- delay in FIR
- Section 173(4) CrPC
- criminal history
- Section 406 IPC
- Uttar Pradesh
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3402 of 2026
Kishan Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajnikant
Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No. 164 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2),
351(3) BNS, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura, with a prayer to enlarge him
on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and on the
basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith co-
accused Saurabh and Ashutosh. He next submits, as per allegation co-accused Saurabh
and Ashutosh with intention to dupe the informant induced him to give Rs. Two lacs
and on their instigation informant deposited Rs. Two lacs in the account of the
applicant.
4. He further submitted that therefore, even as per allegation applicant was not having
any intention to deceit the informant.
5. He further submitted that actually applicant gave Rs. Two lacs loan to the informant
and he in lieu thereof issued cheque in his favour.
6. He further submitted that even alleged incident is said to have been taken place on
26.9.2023 but FIR of the present case was lodged on 20.5.2025 i.e. after more than
one and half years through an application u/s 173(4) BNS and even application u/s
173(4) was moved on 2.5.2025 i.e. after one and half years and this inordinate delay in
lodging the FIR itself suggests that entire allegation made against the applicant are
totally false.
7. He further submitted that however, FIR of the present case was lodged on
20.5.2025 but till date investigation of the case is still pending and in the month of
NABAIL No. 3402 of 2026
2
January investigating officer started making attempt to arrest the applicant. He further
submitted that as after six months first time police tried to arrest the applicant,
therefore, on this ground alone applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
8. He further submitted that however applicant is having criminal history of one
another case relating to offence under section 406 IPC but his criminal history has
been explained in the instant anticipatory bail application.
9. He further submitted that therefore, considering the entire facts applicant should be
enlarged on anticipatory bail during trial.
10. 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.
11. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case.
12. However, as per allegation applicant duped the informant alongwith co-accused
Saurabh and Ashutosh and cheques of Rs. Two lacs were given by informant to him
which were encashed by applicant but it reflects FIR of the present case was lodged
through an application under section 173(4) BNS after more than one and half years
and even application under section 173(4) BNS was also moved after more than one
and half years from the date of alleged incident.
13. Further, however applicant is having criminal history of one case but his criminal
history has been explained in the instant bail application.
14. Further it reflects FIR of the present case was lodged on 20.5.2025 and
immediately after the FIR Investigating Officer did not try to arrest the applicant and
it reflects, in the year 2026 he started chasing the applicant. Considering this fact even
in view of this Court applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
15. 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.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
17. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Kishan Singh, 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;
NABAIL No. 3402 of 2026
3
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;
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;
18. 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.
19. 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…