Allahabad High Court
USMANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail until the charge sheet is filed.
Summary
The applicant, Usman, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in connection with a FIR alleging offences under various sections of the B.N.S. and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He claimed false implication, lack of prior criminal record, and pointed to the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused as a basis for parity. The State opposed the bail. The Court, without delving into the merits, relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) and granted anticipatory bail until the charge sheet is filed under Section 193 BNSS, subject to detailed conditions including cooperation with police, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of personal details on CCTNS. The bail may be cancelled if any condition is breached. The application was disposed of with the grant of anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused creates a right of parity for the applicant.
- What conditions may be imposed on anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted pending the filing of a charge sheet under Section 193 BNSS.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 125, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 193, 351(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Uttar Pradesh Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2026 — s. Rule 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- parity
- bail conditions
- charge sheet
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3676 of 2026
Usman
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Roshan Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in
anticipation of his arrest in Case Crime No. 263 of 2025, under Sections
191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125 of B.N.S. & Section 7
of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Bhawan Bahadur Nagar,
District Bulandshahr.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that F.I.R. has been
lodged by a police officer and applicant has not been assigned any specific
role in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that applicant has no
criminal history to his credit. It is laslty submitted that the co-accused
Suhail, has already been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, vide order dated 13.02.2026 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application U/s 482 B.N.S.S. No. 1454 of 2026, therefore, the applicant is
also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 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 and in
case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and
would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
5. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and
considering the nature of accusations, gravity of offence and antecedents of
NABAIL No. 3676 of 2026
2
applicants, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to get
anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet under Section 193 BNSS as
per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant Usman involved in the aforesaid crime
be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court;
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by
intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation.
(v) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of
any crime after being released on bail.
(vi) At the time of releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail, after
verification, the concerned Investigating Officer shall also record the
Aadhaar number, WhatsApp number, e-mail ID, and mobile number of the
applicant, and the same shall be uploaded on CCTNS, as per Rule 8 of the
Uttar Pradesh Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules,
2026.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of anticipatory bail.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the application stands disposed
of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
April 20, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…