BIDURA DIGALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 3859 of 2026

Bidura Digal
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         : Pawan Kumar Patel, Shadab Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    : G.A.

Court No. - 71
                    HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the accused-
applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to
grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 86 of 2025, under Sections
8/20/25/27A/29/60 NDPS Act, P.S.- Pipari, District- Sonbhadra.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that the
accused-applicant has been falsely implicated by the police during
investigation. The F.I.R. is lodged on 13.05.2025 against six persons, who
have been nabbed in two vehicles carrying 42 kg ganja. The arrest and
recovery of the six accused have not been made in presence of the
independent witness. None of the mandatory provisions of law has been
complied with. It is in the disclosure statement of Nitesh Singh that the
name of co-accused is figured out, wherein the Rs.10,000/- has been paid
through PhonePe to the account of accused-applicant. The applicant has
no criminal history. The accused-applicant wants to cooperate in the
investigation, but apprehending arrest and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant.

5. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three
insightful judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh
Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565,
                                                       NABAIL No. 3859 of 2026
                                2


Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is
consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory
bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to
evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and
gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or
exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of
the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the
accused and flight risk.

6. This Court while considering the name of accused-applicant is figured
out from the statement of co-accused and further considering the gravity
of accusation, explained criminal history and apprehension of arrest in the
case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating
with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory
bail.

7. The applicant- Bidura Digal involved in the aforesaid case crime shall
appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may
be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following
conditions :-

(i) 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) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall
                                                        NABAIL No. 3859 of 2026
                                 3


not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as
an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely
free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.

10. The below mentioned directions shall be complied with for
expeditious disposal of trial; in case charge sheet is submitted against
accused/applicant.

10.1 As the investigation is continuing, in the event charge sheet is
submitted and cognizance is taken, it would be the duty of the
accused/applicants to appear before the trial court or Magistrate
concerned as the case may be without waiting for the issuance of
summons, within 60 days from the date of cognizance or on the date
fixed, which ever is earlier. So that the trial may not be delayed for non
execution of summons or processes.

10.2 The District Judge concerned shall direct each Magistrate and
Special courts to maintain a register of Anticipatory Bail orders granted
by this Court, wherein the details of Anticipatory Bail shall be entered.
The dedicated official shall be nominated in each Special court and
Magistrate court for maintaining the register.

10.3 The accused/applicant shall provide a copy of the final order of
anticipatory bail within 30 days, to the official concerned in whose
jurisdiction the case lies and shall provide his complete contact details
including the mobile number and E-mail ID (if maintained); any change
in detail shall be informed by the applicant.

10.4 On the submission of charge sheet and cognizance taken, the
                                                                                        NABAIL No. 3859 of 2026
                                                                  4


                                    Presiding Officer shall fetch the details of the accused/applicant and the
                                    dedicated official shall inform the accused at the given detail.


                                                                                          (Avnish Saxena,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Shivangi




Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad