Allahabad High Court
ANANG KAUSHIKversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that no fresh ground was raised and therefore the second anticipatory bail application must be rejected.
Summary
The applicant filed a second anticipatory bail application under the inherent powers of the High Court (Section 482) in a murder case, claiming a new ground that a witness, Ajay Kumar Singh, had recorded a statement after the first bail application was rejected. The State opposed, stating the witness was not an eye‑witness and that the statement was already in the case diary, not a fresh development. The Court examined whether a post‑rejection statement could constitute a fresh ground and held that it could not, as the statement was not recorded after the earlier rejection. The Court also rejected the argument that regular bail granted to a co‑accused or an independent non‑eye‑witness statement could serve as a fresh ground for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed, with a direction that any future regular bail application would be considered on its own merits.
Issues considered
- Can a statement recorded by a witness after the rejection of an earlier anticipatory bail application constitute a fresh ground for granting anticipatory bail?
- Does the grant of regular bail to a co‑accused provide a fresh ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant?
- Do non‑eye‑witness statements affect the consideration of an anticipatory bail application?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 115(2), 3(5), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- High Court
- fresh ground
- eye witness
- regular bail
- co‑accused
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. - 7814 of 2026
Anang Kaushik
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwini Kumar, Ganesh Shanker
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Shri Anurag Srivastava, Advocate, holding the brief of Shri
Ashwini Kumar, Learned counsel for the applicant; and Learned A.G.A. for
the State.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.0673 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 103(1),
115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station – Katghar,
District Moradabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as the
applicant apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case.
3. The Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that this is a second
anticipatory bail and the new ground that the Learned counsel has canvassed
is that the police recorded the statement of one Ajay Kumar Singh who had
arrived at the spot first in point of time and had taken the injured to the
hospital. He did not see the applicant on the spot.
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended
that the statement has not been recorded post rejection of the anticipatory
bail application of the applicant and the said statement had been recorded
and was present in the case diaries. The Learned A.G.A. has further
submitted that the witness is not an eye witness and as per his own
statement, he on receiving a phone call from one of his friends who informed
him that he should come out of his house and see that somebody has been
stabbed, he came out and then took the injured to the hospital. The Learned
A.G.A. states that he is not an eye witness of the occurrence. This Court had
refused to entertain the anticipatory bail of the applicant and the co-accused
Anil Kumar Sharma, taking note of the specific role given to the applicant in
NABAIL No. 7814 of 2026
2
the FIR which was duly corroborated by the eye witness account.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties.
6. The statement of the witness that is being referred to by the Learned
counsel for the applicant has not been recorded post the rejection of the bail
application of the applicant. The same cannot constitute a new ground for
consideration of anticipatory bail application of the applicant. A second
anticipatory bail application cannot be filed to review the earlier order. Only
a fresh ground can be taken into consideration. In the opinion of the Court,
no new ground has been brought to the notice of the Court which may have
arisen post rejection of the anticipatory bail application of the applicant and
his application is thus liable to be rejected.
7. A further argument has been made by the Learned counsel for the
applicant that co-accused Akash Rawat alias Sona has been granted regular
bail by this Court vide the order dated 31.08.2026. In the opinion of the
Court, merely because the co-accused has been granted regular bail would
not constitute a fresh ground for consideration of anticipatory bail of the
applicant.
8. The Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that an independent
witness, namely Vineet Gupta, has clearly stated that the applicant was not
involved in the murder of the deceased, namely Vinayak. Even the said
argument does not impress the Court as the witness, Vineet Gupta, does not
claim to be an eye witness of the occurrence.
9. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
10. However, in the event the applicant appears before the concerned Court
and files an application for bail, the same shall be considered and decided
independently on its own merits, without being influenced by the rejection of
the present anticipatory bail application by this Court. Any observations
made in this order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present
application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the
case.
September 29, 2026
Kushal
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…