Allahabad High Court
MADAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The Court held that, given the low flight risk, the applicant’s cooperation, and the lack of concrete evidence, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS filed by Madan Singh, who faced charges under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 131, 109(1), 352 and 351(3) in a case arising from alleged indiscriminate firing during a harvest. The applicant argued that the FIR was politically motivated, that no injuries or weapons were recovered, and that he had a low flight risk despite a prior criminal history. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Sibbia, Mhetre and Aggarwal) the Court evaluated the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents, the risk of tampering with evidence, and his willingness to cooperate. Finding the applicant’s flight risk minimal and his assurances satisfactory, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions. The order emphasized that it does not prejudice the merits of the trial and directed procedural compliance for expeditious disposal.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate scope of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in light of the alleged offences?
- Does the applicant’s criminal antecedent and the nature of the allegations justify denial of anticipatory bail?
- Are there sufficient grounds to believe the applicant may tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses?
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 109(1), 131, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 352, 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- criminal antecedent
- flight risk
- witness intimidation
- bail conditions
- politically motivated FIR
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 4296 of 2026
Madan Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Punya Sheel Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel 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. 64
of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 131, 109(1), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S.
Mant, District Mathura during pendency of the trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicants that the F.I.R. is lodged
by the Pradhan of the village. The allegation in the F.I.R. is such that the accused-
applicants along with other co-accused were reaping the crop in the field of Gram
Samaj Land. The Pradhan came to know about the harvesting of the crop. He came
there to the spot, on which the accused-applicants and other co-accused with common
object had started indiscriminate firing on informant. It is alleged that six rounds were
fired. There is no injury. No bullets and pellets have ever been recovered. The
implication of the case is false because of the village politics.The accused/applicant
has criminal history of three cases, which are explained. One is of death due to rashly
negligent driving another is of voluntary causing hurt. In all the cases, the applicant is
on bail. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail as the applicant is apprehending the arrest.
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, 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
NABAIL No. 4296 of 2026
2
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 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- Madan Singh 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 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 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/applicant 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
NABAIL No. 4296 of 2026
3
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 Presiding Officer
shall fetch the details of the accused/applicant and the dedicated official shall inform
the accused at the given detail.
May 5, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…