Allahabad High Court
VINODversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 482 BNSS, subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The applicant Vinod sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in a case arising from a 2015 incident where he was initially not charge‑sheeted but later summoned after a witness altered his statement to implicate Vinod. The prosecution argued that the applicant was the principal offender and that the witness statement was not recorded under Section 161 CrPC, urging rejection of the bail application. The court examined the scope of anticipatory bail as laid down in the Supreme Court decisions of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia, Siddharam Mhetre and Sushila Aggarwal, focusing on the nature of the accusation, flight risk, and the applicant's willingness to cooperate. It noted that the original witness statement pointed to a co‑accused, the applicant posed a low flight risk, and he gave assurances of cooperation. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions, while clarifying that the order does not prejudice the trial court’s merits. The bail may be cancelled if any condition is breached.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 BNSS given the change in the witness's statement.
- Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or threat to the investigation warranting denial of bail.
- How the Supreme Court precedents on anticipatory bail apply to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 351, 482
- Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) — s. 161, 319
- Indian Penal Code (IPC) — s. 307, 324, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 BNSS
- IPC sections 307,324,504,506
- CrPC sections 319,161
- witness statement change
- flight risk
- Supreme Court precedents
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 4306 of 2026
Vinod
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gambhir Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Gambhir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Chandrabhan Kushwaha, learned counsel for the informant 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 2015 (S.T. No. 35 of 2016)
under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Rajpura, District- Sambhal,
during pendency of the trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the matter is of
the year 2015. The FIR has been lodged against four persons including
the applicant. It is the allegation in the FIR that co-accused Satyapal has
fired at Jhau, the injured. The accused applicant has not been charge
sheeted as he was found not present during the incident at the place. After
continuance of trial, the accused applicant has been summoned through
the process under Section 319 CrPC. The injured P.W.2 who has initially
stated that Satyapal has fired the shot at him, has now changed his version
and stated that accused Vinod has opened fire at him. He submits that the
accused wants to continue in the trial but apprehending arrest. Hence,
seeks anticipatory bail.
4. Countering the argument, learned counsel for the informant has
submitted that the role is entirely of the applicant. The statement of the
NABAIL No. 4306 of 2026
2
injured witness has not been recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the
injured has given deposition before the court on the basis of which, the
accused applicant has been summoned. Hence, submitted that the
application deserves to be rejected.
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 initial statement of the injured is pointing towards
Satypal, the co-accused who oepn detrimental shot role subsequently
assigned to the accused applicant, 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- Vinod 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.
NABAIL No. 4306 of 2026
3
(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/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.)
May 5, 2026
Krishna*
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…