Allahabad High Court

KAMENDRA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The Court held that a case for anticipatory bail is made out and granted the applicant bail with conditions.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC filed by Kamendra Yadav, who was implicated in an Arms Act case (Sections 3, 5, 25, 7) based solely on the confessional statement of a co‑accused. The applicant asserted his innocence, argued that the co‑accused’s statement is inadmissible, and offered to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the facts. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Sushila Aggarwal and Siddharth, the Court examined the nature of the offence, the applicant’s role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing. Finding that the applicant did not pose a threat and that a case for anticipatory bail existed, the Court granted bail with a personal bond and several conditions, including cooperation with investigators and a prohibition on leaving India without permission.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC in view of the nature of the Arms Act offences.
Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused can be used to justify arrest of the applicant.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or absconding.
Whether the applicant's prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 3, 5, 7
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Arms Act
confessional statement
false implication
personal liberty
Section 482 CrPC
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S
482 BNSS No. - 4859 of 2026

Kamendra Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Babul Kumar Sharma,
Muskan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., R.B. Pal

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit, filed today is taken on record.
Affidavit of compliance filed by the State of UP, is taken on
record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A
for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.109 of 2025, under Sections
3/5/25/7 Arms Act Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi,
with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case; he has nothing to do with the alleged offence in
spite of that the police are trying to arrest the applicant.The
applicant has been nominated in the present case only on the
basis of confessional statement of a co-accused-Sandeep
Kushwaha @ Sandy, who was arrested by the police on the
spot. it is alleged by the prosecution that several countrymade
pistols were recovered from the possession of the aforesaid co-
accused. When the confessional statement was recorded, he
took the name of the applicant. It is further submitted that the
NABAIL No. 4859 of 2026
2

confessional statement of a co-accused is not admissible in
evidence. The police have falsely implicated the applicant due
to ulterior motive. The applicant has no concerned with the
alleged offence. The criminal antecedents of 7 previous cases
have been explained in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in
support of the application as well in the in the supplementary
affidavit. The applicant is not a previous convict. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall
appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or
the Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the
applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the
liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall
abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute
the factual aspect.

6. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused
the record.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held 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.

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
NABAIL No. 4859 of 2026
3

(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our
constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused
during investigation arises when custodial investigation
becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a
possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may
abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is
lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A
distinction must be made between the existence of the power to
arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and
self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no
reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey
summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to
arrest the accused.

9. Considering the settled principle of law regarding
anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending
facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any
opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed
with following directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Kamendra Yadav,
involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail
till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station or
the court concerned;

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating
Officer during investigation and shall report to the
Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of
conducting investigation;
NABAIL No. 4859 of 2026
4

(iii) 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 officer; and

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court.

11. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public
Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant
is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned
court.

September 28, 2026
Nitendra

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…