Allahabad High Court

CHATRAPALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: AVNISH SAXENA

Holding

The Court held that despite the co‑accused disclosing the applicant's name, the low flight risk and the applicant's willingness to cooperate warranted the grant of anticipatory bail.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Chatrapal in a case involving alleged robbery and murder offences (Sections 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) IPC). The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated due to enmity with co‑accused and had no prior criminal record, seeking bail to avoid arrest while cooperating with investigation. The State opposed the bail. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Sibbia, Mhetre, Aggarwal), the Court evaluated factors such as the nature of the accusation, false implication, flight risk, and willingness to cooperate. Finding low flight risk and the applicant’s assurance to cooperate, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions. The order also directed compliance measures for trial proceedings and maintenance of a bail register.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 in view of the applicant's claim of false implication and low flight risk.
What factors, as laid down by Supreme Court jurisprudence, must be considered when deciding an anticipatory bail application.
Whether imposing conditions such as personal bond, non‑intimidation of witnesses, and appearance before the trial court is appropriate.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 351, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 303(2), 317(2), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
false implication
flight risk
cooperation with investigation
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S
482 BNSS No. - 4337 of 2026

Chatrapal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mithilesh Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Ojha, 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. 29 of 2026,
under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) BNS, P.S.- Asmouli,
District- Sambhal, during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the
accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The
FIR has been lodged on 16.2.2026 against one named and two
unnamed persons. It is the allegation that the informant was
running jewellery shop. Two persons came in the jewellery
shop and they have stolen bangles and ran away. One of the
miscreants was apprehended by the persons of the vicinity and
another managed to escape. It is further contended that the
accused applicant has no criminal history. He was having
enmity with the co-accused due to which his name has been
disclosed by the co-accused. He wants 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
NABAIL No. 4337 of 2026
2

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

6. Considering that name of the accused applicant has been
disclosed by the co-accused, 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- Chatrapal 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. 4337 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 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/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
NABAIL No. 4337 of 2026
4

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 Presiding Officer shall fetch the details of the
accused/applicants and the dedicated official shall inform the
accused at the given detail.
May 6, 2026
Krishna*

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…