Allahabad High Court
NITISH @ SHIVENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Nitish @ Shivendra, till the conclusion of trial, subject to standard conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC filed by Nitish @ Shivendra, who was named as an accused in a suicide case under Section 306 IPC. The applicant argued that the allegations were false, that he had no prior criminal record, and that a charge‑sheet had already been filed, eliminating any need for custodial interrogation. The State opposed bail but could not refute the factual contentions. The court noted that the co‑accused, Jolly @ Anjali, had already been granted anticipatory bail and that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation. Considering the lack of prior criminal history, the filing of the charge‑sheet, and the absence of any indication of tampering or intimidation, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions. The order was made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC despite allegations under Section 306 IPC.
- Whether the filing of a charge‑sheet obviates the need for custodial interrogation.
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal record and the co‑accused's bail affect the decision.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 173(3), 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 306
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 306 IPC
- suicide
- false accusation
- bail conditions
- no prior criminal record
- charge sheet
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3686 of 2026
Nitish @ Shivendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nadeem, Rajiv Sisodia
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA apprised the Court that he has received the
instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally,
disposed off.
2. Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan
Yadav, 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. 661 of 2024, under Sections 306 IPC, Police Station Gajraula, District
Amroha, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that by way of moving application u/s
173(3) BNSS applicant has been falsely made accused in the the present matter
alongwith co-accused Jolly @ Anjali, wife of the deceased.
5. He further submitted that as per allegation applicant was having illicit relationship
with co-accused Joly @ Anjali therefore, deceased i.e. her husband committed suicide
but entire allegation levelled against him are totally false.
6. He further submitted that even if allegations are accepted then also offence under
section 306 IPC is not made out.
7. He further submitted that even co-ordinate Bench has released the co-accused Jolly
@ Anjali on anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.3.2026 passed in Crl. Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application 482 No. 2304 of 2026 and as far as allegations are
concerned case of applicant is on better footing than case of her although she was
lady.
8. He further submitted the even during investigation applicant was not arrested
pursuant to the order dated 3.1.2025 passed by division Bench of this Court vide Crl.
Misc. Bail Application No. 21446 of 2024 and now after investigation chargesheet has
NABAIL No. 3686 of 2026
2
been filed and there is no allegation that applicant did not co-operate during
investigation.
9. He further submitted that as chargesheet has already been filed against the
applicant, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant.
10. He further submitted that applicant is having apprehension that if he will appear
before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.
11. He next submitted that even applicant is not having any other criminal history to
his credit.
12. 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.
13. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case.
14. However, as per allegations due to abetment of applicant and co accused Jolly @
Anjali deceased committed suicide who was the husband of the co-accused Jolly @
Anjali but co-accused Jolly @ Anjali has already been released on anticipatory bail by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
15. Further even it reflects during investigation pursuant to the order passed by
division bench of this Court applicant was not arrested and there is no allegation that
he did not co-operate with the investigation and now after investigation charge sheet
has been filed.
16. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant that after submission of charge sheet there is no occasion for custodial
interrogation of the applicant.
17. Further considering the general practice nowadays adopted by the court concerned
the apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out.
18. Further, applicant is having no other previous criminal history to his credit.
19. 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.
20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
21. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Nitish @ Shivendra, 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:-
NABAIL No. 3686 of 2026
3
i. 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;
ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;
iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless
personal presence is exempted;
22. 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.
23. 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.
April 20, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…