Allahabad High Court

TEJMANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: AVNISH SAXENA

Holding

The court held that, despite the gravity of the offences, the applicant’s low flight risk, absence of prior convictions, and assertion of false implication justified the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482, subject to strict conditions.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Tejman in a case involving alleged gold‑loan fraud, with charges under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated by a bank branch manager and that the gold supplied for the loan was genuine, not fictitious as alleged. The State opposed bail, noting that a charge‑sheet had been filed but no prior criminal record existed. Relying on Supreme Court precedents governing anticipatory bail, the court evaluated the seriousness of the accusations, the applicant’s low flight risk, lack of antecedents, and willingness to cooperate. It concluded that these factors justified granting anticipatory bail, subject to a personal bond and several conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses. The order emphasized that the bail grant does not prejudice the trial court’s eventual findings.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case involving serious offences under the IPC.
Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication and lack of prior criminal record warrant bail.
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or threat to the investigation warranting denial of bail.
Whether imposing conditions on bail is appropriate in the circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
gold loan fraud
false implication
IPC offences
flight risk
bail conditions
cooperation with investigation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3893 of 2026

Tejman
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bishal Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel holding the brief
appeared for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS
has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Gopiganj, District Bhadohi during
pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that
accused/applicant has been falsely implicated by the Branch Manager of
Indian Bank in FIR dated 30.03.2025 for the incident occurred between
12.09.2023 to 11.12.2023 with the allegation against the 11 named
accused that they have taken the gold loan by providing fictitious gold to
the Bank, which has been initially checked by the co-accused persons in
connivance with the accused, who have taken the gold loan. The gold
analyst and the accused both have been named in the FIR. Learned
counsel submits that the gold, which was given at the time of taking loan
was pure gold and was erroneously found to be fictitious. The gold
analyst is the employee of the Bank on whose report the gold loan was
granted to the accused/applicant. Further submits that there is no criminal
history of accused/applicant. The accused/applicant is apprehending
arrest, hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
NABAIL No. 3893 of 2026
2

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant and submits that the charge sheet is submitted against the
accused/applicant. There is no criminal history other than the present one.

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,
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. Considering that initially the gold loan was taken in the year 2023 after
gold purity analysis but lateron the same has been found fictitious gold.
Further this Court, while considering the gravity of accusation 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- Tejman involved in the aforesaid case crime shall
appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer as the case may
be within thirty 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
NABAIL No. 3893 of 2026
3

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
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/their 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.

(Avnish Saxena,J.)
April 23, 2026
Abhishek Sri.

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…