RAJU CHAUHAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4352 of 2026

Raju Chauhan And 2 Others
                                                          .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)         :   Tanu Singh, Vindhyvasini Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Ms. Tanu Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Learned
AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS
has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to release him on
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0359 of 2025, under Sections 109,
115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS, P.S. Bardah, District Azamgarh during
pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the
accused/applicants has been falsely implicated in the FIR dated
19.11.2025 lodged by the informant with the allegation that the accused
applicants have beaten the informant and his family members with lathi
and danda. The injuries are simple in nature. There is previous enmity
between the parties dueto the boundary dispute of their land. During
investigation, the accused/applicants have not been arrested. They have
no criminal history. The applicants wants to appear before the trial court
but apprehending arrest, hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicants.

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,
                                                      NABAIL No. 4352 of 2026
                               2


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 applicants 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 have not been arrested during
the investigation. Further this Court, while considering 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. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Raju Chauhan, Rangila @
Rangita Chauhan and Mangla @ Mangal Chauhan 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 applicants 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 applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicants 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall
not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 4352 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    witnesses are present in the trial court.

                                    (v) The applicants 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 6, 2026
                                    Abhishek Sri.




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad