Allahabad High Court
PUSHPENDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted till the end of the trial, subject to conditions, and allowed the application.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Pushpendra Kumar, who is accused under IPC sections 498‑A, 304‑B and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in a case registered as Crime No. 65 of 2023. The applicant argued that the allegations were false, he faced no credible evidence, and he feared arrest, while the State opposed the bail. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) that anticipatory bail can continue till the trial’s conclusion and must be granted after weighing factors such as the nature of the offence, risk of tampering with evidence, and likelihood of fleeing, the Court found the case suitable for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties and imposing conditions to ensure his cooperation, non‑interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving India. The bail protection may be cancelled upon breach of any condition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 CrPC in the present case
- Whether anticipatory bail may be of indefinite duration up to the conclusion of the trial
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or fleeing justice
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 498-A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC 498-A
- IPC 304-B
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- high court
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3677 of 2026
Pushpendra Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Satyendra
Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.65 of 2023, under Sections 498-A,
304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ghiror, District Mainpuri
during the pendency of the trial.
3.It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
initially first information report in Case Crime No. 65 of 2023, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ghiror,
District Mainpuri has been lodged and thereafter, after investigation, final
report was submitted by the investigating officer on 10.04.2023. After
submission of the first final report, further investigation was ordered by
the Higher officials of the police concerned and thereafter, again second
final report was submitted by the investigating officer on 07.06.2023.
Thereafter, after two years, protest application was filed by the informant
that is father of the deceased and present applicant was summoned vide
order dated 09.11.2025. Thereafter, criminal Misc. Application under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. No. 5582 of 2006 was filed by Shanti Devi and
others Versus State of U.P. and another, in which summoning order dated
09.11.2025 was quashed in regard to applicant no.6-Mamta (Nanad) and
application is partly allowed vide order dated 15.05.2018. Further
NABAIL No. 3677 of 2026
2
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 B.N.S.S.
No. 10767 of 2025 has been filed by Shailendra Kumar alias Raju and this
Court allowed the application vide order dated 19.02.2025. He also
submitted that during the course of inquiry, affidavits have been filed by
the informant and other family members of the deceased in support of the
present applicant. He further argued that applicant is innocent and he has
apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no
credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant
are false. He has been falsely implicated in this case. If the applicant is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the
trial. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the anticipatory bail.
5. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,
(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject
finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration
invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
6. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can,
depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after
filing of the charge sheet till trial.
7. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while
considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to
consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of
his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as
leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case,
while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether
to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
8. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail,
nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant
NABAIL No. 3677 of 2026
3
till the trial.
9. The application is allowed accordingly.
10. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Pushpendra Kumar, he shall be
released on anticipatory bail till the end of trial on his 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 make himself available before the Court concerned
on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.
(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police office.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him
before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground
for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 6, 2026
T.S.
Digitally signed by :-
TRIBHUWAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…