SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDHAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4382 of 2026

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandha
                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                 Versus

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


Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ajay Vikram Yadav, Devendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71


                   HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Vikram 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. 80 of 2026, under Sections 109(1),
324(2) of BNS, P.S.- Ghiror, District- Mainpuri, 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 informant in FIR dated
02.04.2026, wherein it is alleged that the accused applicant and three
other co-accused came on fortuner vehicle apprehends the informant and
open indiscriminate firing on him. Further submits that it is a no injury
case. The accused applicant has no criminal history. There is panchayat
election rivalry between the informant and the co-accused Dharmendra @
Billa, who usually fought panchayat election. 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
                                                       NABAIL No. 4382 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. This Court considering the role of applicant and it is no injury case and
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- Sandeep Kumar @ Sandha 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.
                                                        NABAIL No. 4382 of 2026
                                 3


(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 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.
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 4382 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    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.


                                                                                           (Avnish Saxena,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Sharad/-




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