Allahabad High Court
VIRENDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate in the present circumstances and granted it to the applicant until the trial concludes, subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Virendra Kumar, who was accused under IPC sections 69, 352 and 351(3) in a case involving a major‑age female victim. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging that the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 indicated consent and that there was no credible evidence against him. The State, represented by the Advocate General, opposed the bail. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court examined factors such as the nature of the offence, the accused’s role, and the risk of tampering with evidence. Concluding that the case was suitable for anticipatory bail, the Court granted it until the trial’s conclusion, subject to a personal bond and specific conditions. The order directed that the applicant be released on bail if arrested, with provisions for cancellation upon default.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under Section 482 of the CrPC in view of the nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged role and the risk of influencing the investigation or tampering with evidence justify denial of bail.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted for an indefinite period up to the conclusion of the trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352, 69
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- false allegation
- consent
- evidence tampering
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 4389 of 2026
Virendra Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhola Nath Yadav, Manish Kumar
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2026 under Sections 69, 352,
351(3) BNS, Police Station Chiraiyakot, District Mau.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and on the basis of false allegation, he has been
made accused in the present matter. He next submits that victim was
major girl and from her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183
BNSS, it is evident that she was consenting party and she refused for her
medical examination. It is next submitted that applicant is having
apprehension of arrest by the police any time in the above-mentioned
case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. If the applicant is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the
trial.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the anticipatory bail.
5. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,
(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject
finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration
invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It
NABAIL No. 4389 of 2026
2
has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending
on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the
charge sheet till trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the
court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the
likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering
with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing
justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that
Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature
and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the
facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or
refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
6. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail,
nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant
till the trial.
7. The application is allowed accordingly.
8. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Virendra Kumar, he shall be
released on anticipatory bail till the end of trial on furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself/herself available before the
Investigating Officer/Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and
will cooperate in the investigation/trial.
(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police office.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court and if he/she has passport, the same shall be deposited by
him/her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
NABAIL No. 4389 of 2026
3
9. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground
for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 7, 2026
KK Patel
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…