Allahabad High Court
SUSHEEL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to prescribed conditions, without assessing the merits of the underlying criminal allegations.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Susheel Kumar under Section 482 of the CrPC and the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, where he alleged false implication in a case involving two base cases in a gang chart. The applicant had no prior convictions and was already on bail in related matters, while co‑accused had previously been granted anticipatory bail by the same court. The State opposed the relief but did not dispute the similarity of the applicant’s situation to the co‑accused. After reviewing the submissions and records, the Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, decided to grant anticipatory bail, imposing standard conditions such as cooperation with police interrogation and non‑intimidation of witnesses. The order directed that, upon arrest, the applicant be released on personal bond and surety, and warned that breach of conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC in the present case.
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior conviction and the grant of anticipatory bail to co‑accused justify extending the same relief.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 2(b)(i), 2(b)(xi), 3(1)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- U.P. Gangsters Act
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. - 8084 of 2026
Susheel Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jeetendra Kesharwani, Siddharth
Niranjan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 201 of 2026, under Sections 2(b)(i), 2(b)(xi),
3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police Station- Gulriha, District Gorakhpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on
anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-
mentioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of two base cases
mentioned in the gang chart. The applicant has criminal history of one other
case except base cases and in all the cases he is on bail. The co-accused Tej
Prakash, Deshraj and Vandana have already been granted anticipatory bail
by this Court in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. 7001 of 2026. The applicant is not a
previous convict.
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail,
but has not disputed the fact that the case of the applicant stands on a similar
footing to that of the co-accused.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought on the record.
NABAIL No. 8084 of 2026
2
6. On the basis of two base cases mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant
has been nominated in the present case. The applicant is on bail in both the
cases. In the third case shown against the applicant, he is stated to be on bail.
The applicant is not a previous convict. The co-accused Tej Prakash, Deshraj
and Vandana have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. 7001 of 2026.
7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to
enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is
allowed.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Susheel Kumar, he shall be
released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on
furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
ii. that 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;
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court;
iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for
deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered
to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
September 8, 2026
Sartaj
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…