Allahabad High Court

ARUN KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: AVNISH SAXENA

Holding

The court held that despite the prima facie evidence of an illegal transaction, the low flight risk and the applicants' willingness to cooperate warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

Summary

The applicants, Arun Kumar Singh and Tej Bahadur Singh, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with FIR No. 584 of 2025 alleging they took Rs. 15.95 lakh from an informant for a railway contract that was not delivered. They claimed false implication, no prior criminal record, and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, seeking protection from arrest. The State opposed the bail. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Sushila Aggarwal), the court examined factors such as the seriousness of the allegation, flight risk, and cooperation. Finding the transaction prima facie illegal but noting low flight risk and the applicants' assurances, the court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions. The order emphasized that it does not prejudice the merits of the case and directed compliance with procedural requirements.

Issues considered

Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in view of the alleged illegal transaction and the nature of the accusation.
Whether the factors such as flight risk, criminal antecedent, false implication, and willingness to cooperate justify granting bail.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 318(4), 351, 482

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482
false implication
flight risk
criminal procedure
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 4131 of 2026

Arun Kumar Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Kumar Pandey, Shiwendra
Pratap Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Pandey, 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 him on
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 584 of 2025, under Sections 318(4)
BNS, P.S.- Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the accused
applicants have been falsely implicated in FIR dated 24.12.2025. It is
alleged in FIR that the accused applicants have taken money from the
informant for railway contract and in all they have taken Rs. 15.95 lakh
from the informant but the railway contract could not be provided to the
informant. The applicant has invested the money and started giving
profits to the informant. Later on the profit was also stopped. Further
submits that the accused applicants have no criminal history. The money
has been transacted from 06.03.2025 to 12.04.2025. The transaction was
shady. The investigation is continuing. The accused applicants want to co-
operate in the investigation but apprehending arrest. 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
NABAIL No. 4131 of 2026
2

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. This Court considering the prima facie transaction made for obtaining
contract illegally and 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- Arun Kumar Singh and Tej Bahadur Singh
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 applicants 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 applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicants 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall
NABAIL No. 4131 of 2026
3

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

(v) The applicants 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/applicants :-

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/applicants 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. 4131 of 2026
4

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

(Avnish Saxena,J.)
May 6, 2026
Sharad/-

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…