Allahabad High Court

PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: AVNISH SAXENA

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with specified conditions.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS filed by Praveen Kumar Gupta, who was implicated in a FIR for alleged trade tax evasion and charged under IPC sections 420, 467 and 468. The applicant argued that the FIR was false, that the case had been stayed by the court in 2005 and that no summons or warrants had been served, and he had no criminal record. The State opposed the bail, but the court referred to Supreme Court precedents outlining the factors for granting anticipatory bail, including the nature of the accusation, the applicant's antecedents, flight risk and willingness to cooperate. Finding that the applicant was not arrested, the proceedings were stayed, the gravity of the charge was moderate, and the flight risk low, the court decided to grant anticipatory bail. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond, sureties, and specific undertakings not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or seek adjournments, and the applicant must appear before the trial court as directed.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 BNSS in view of the alleged false implication and pending charges under IPC 420, 467, 468.
Whether the applicant's lack of criminal history, the prior stay of proceedings, and low flight risk justify the grant of bail.
Whether the conditions imposed by the court are appropriate to safeguard the trial process.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 BNSS
IPC 420
IPC 467
IPC 468
false implication
tax evasion
flight risk
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 4312 of 2026

Praveen Kumar Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aman Ahsan, Shivam Yadav, Udai
Bhatia
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, 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. 509 of 2001, under Sections 420, 467,
468 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
applicant has been falsely implicated by the Trade Tax Officer in FIR
dated 31.10.2001. The allegation in the FIR is of trade tax evasion by the
Sakti Enterprises run by the applicant. There is no exact figure of tax
evasion. After the submission of charge sheet. The applicant has
challenged it in revisional jurisdiction of this Court in the year 2005. The
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 26.7.2005 has stayed the
proceedings of the case. This stay was continued up to 18.5.2022 when
the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is thereafter, that the
processes have been issued by the trial court but accused applicant has not
been served with the summons, bailable warrant and non-bailable
warrant. The applicant has no criminal history. The accused applicant
wants to appear before the trial court but apprehends arrest. Hence, seeks
anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
NABAIL No. 4312 of 2026
2

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 interrogation, willingness of
the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the
accused and flight risk.

6. Considering that the accused applicant was not arrested during
investigation. After submission of charge sheet, the proceedings were
stayed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and that the processes have
never been served upon the 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- Praveen Kumar Gupta 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.
NABAIL No. 4312 of 2026
3

(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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…