SURYAKANT MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4267 of 2026

Suryakant Mishra
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)             :   Bindu Kumari, Vivek Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :   G.A., Vivek Kumar Singh

Court No. - 70
                 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Heard learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
informant as well as, Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on record.

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2026, under Sections
103(1), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Chandawak, District Jaunpur, during
the pendency of trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no
concern with the offence alleged against him. The applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case. No offence has been committed by the
applicant. It is submitted that the main accused Vishnu Mishra and the
deceased were close friends and the incident was a result of sudden
provocation and a verbal altercation between them. It is submitted that no
specific weapon or role has been assigned to the applicant in the recovery
memo or in the FIR and the allegations are of a general and vague nature.
Learned counsel submits that medical report does not support the ocular
version of the FIR, as there is only one injury reported, whereas nine
persons are alleged to have attacked the deceased. The applicant has no
criminal history. It is further submitted that the applicant has
apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is
no credible evidence against him. In case the applicant is granted
                                                     NABAIL No. 4267 of 2026
                               2


anticipatory bail, there is no possibility of misusing the liberty of
anticipatory bail.

Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.G.A. have contended that the accusation levelled against the applicant
is specific. They submit that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of
death was hemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem head injury. They pray
that the present anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,
(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering
an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the
nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his
influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as
leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case,
while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether
to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

In Srikant Upadhyay Vs.State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine 9425, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is
an extraordinary power. Though in many cases, it was held that bail is
said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that
anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its
grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court
depending on the facts and circumstances of each case

Insofar as the allegations are concerned, the same is very much apparent
on record.

In this case, bare perusal of the first information report itself shows that
the allegations are specific against the applicant. There are antemortem
injuries and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was
hemorrhagic shock due to antemortem injury. The applicant is named in
the FIR and during the course of investigation, independent witnesses also
supported the prosecution version. In case the applicant has any
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 4267 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    grievance, he may avail remedy before the appropriate forum.

                                    In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
                                    case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of
                                    the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the
                                    applicants in the aforesaid case.

                                    Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.



                                                                                        (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Brijesh




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