RAKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4073 of 2026

Rakesh Kumar And Another
                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                 Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)        : Amit Kumar, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Learned
AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS
has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to release them on
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2018, under Sections 420, 468,
471, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Delhi Gate, District- Meerut, during pendency of
the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused
applicants have been falsely implicated in the FIR dated 17.1.2018 with
the allegation that the accused applicants got manufactured false income
certificate in connivance with the revenue officials to claim Kanya
Vidhya Dhan Scheme of the Government. After submission of the charge
sheet in the year 2024, the summons have been issued. During
investigation, the accused applicants have not been arrested. Their
anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Session Court. It is
further contended that the accused applicants have no criminal history.
They are senior citizens. Other co-accused have been granted anticipatory
bail by this Court. The accused applicants are apprehending arrest and
want to appear before the trial court to face trial. Hence, they seek
anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
                                                       NABAIL No. 4073 of 2026
                                2


applicants.

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 during investigation, the accused applicant have not
been arrested, 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 applicants- Rakesh Kumar and Jaiprakash 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)
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 4073 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    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 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.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Krishna*




Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad