Allahabad High Court
MANOJ NIGAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to a personal bond and specified conditions.
Summary
Manoj Nigam applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in a criminal case (Crime No. 13 of 2026) alleging offences under IPC sections 420, 504 and 506. He claimed he was falsely implicated because the FIR stemmed from a disputed sale agreement involving his deceased mother, Manorma Nigam, and that he was merely a marginal witness with no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail. The Court examined the scope of anticipatory bail, referring to Supreme Court precedents that require consideration of the seriousness of the accusation, the risk of arrest, the accused’s antecedents, and the possibility of false implication. Finding low flight risk, willingness to cooperate, and the civil nature of the underlying dispute, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions. The order also directed procedural compliance for future trial proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 of the BNSS given the nature of the allegations under IPC 420, 504 and 506.
- Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or threat to the investigation warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- false implication
- IPC 420
- IPC 504
- IPC 506
- flight risk
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. - 4372 of 2026
Manoj Nigam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Naveen Kumar Upadhyay, Rajesh
Kumar Dubey, Sachin Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sachin Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel holding brief
appeared 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. 13 of 2026, under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.-
Kohna, District- Kanpur Nagar, 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 FIR dated 16.2.2026 lodged by
the informant with the allegation that the co-accused, who is the mother of
the applicant has entered into an agreement to sale of a flat with the
informant on 4.6.2018. The agreement could not matured to execution of
sale deed. It is allegation in the FIR that neither the sale deed has been
executed by the co-accused nor amount has been returned. It is further
contended that accused applicant is only the marginal witness of the
agreement to sale. He has no criminal history. No subsequent sale deed has
been executed. The co-accused Manorma Nigam has already passed away on
10.1.2026. The accused applicant 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 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
NABAIL No. 4372 of 2026
2
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 the remedy lies in civil, 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- Manoj Nigam 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.
(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.
NABAIL No. 4372 of 2026
3
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 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 6, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…