Allahabad High Court
ANKURversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Ankur, filed an anticipatory bail application under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act in connection with Crime No. 360 of 2026. He claimed the FIR was false, asserting that the incident involved no injury and that a co‑accused was shot by police in retaliatory fire, while his name appeared only in a confessional statement of the co‑accused. The State opposed bail, highlighting the applicant’s repeat‑offender status and alleged firing on police. The Court, after considering the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the lack of injury, concluded there was a low likelihood of the applicant repeating the offence or tampering with witnesses. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with conditions of personal bond, cooperation with police, no intimidation of witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite allegations of firing on police and repeat‑offender status.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of repeating the alleged offences under the B.N.S. and Arms Act.
- Whether the applicant is likely to tamper with witnesses or obstruct the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- repeat offender
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
- injury-less offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8194 of 2026
Ankur
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Endoo Kumari, Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit
explaining the criminal antecedents, which is taken on the record.
2. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and Learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 360 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 3(5) of
the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station –
Badaut, District Bagpat, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail,
as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case.
4. The Learned counsel for the applicant contends that this is a false case
in which the applicant has been implicated. Although the FIR has been
registered for offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS along with other
sections, however, this is a case involving no injury. On the contrary, one
of the accused supposedly arrested on the spot, was shot at by the police
supposedly in retaliatory firing to the one made by the accused persons.
The applicant is stated to have escaped from the spot.
5. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended
that the applicant is a repeat offender. He had fired upon the police and it
is only a matter of good fortune that the police personnel did not receive
any injuries. Learned A.G.A. has not denied the explanation of the
criminal antecedents.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
NABAIL No. 8194 of 2026
2
parties.
7. It is a case involving no injury. One of the accused, supposedly arrested
by the police, was shot at by the police supposedly in retaliatory firing.
The applicant is stated to have escaped from the spot and his name has
been disclosed in the confessional statement of the co-accused Kartik and
Chirag. In the opinion of the Court, taking note of the explanation given
by the applicant with respect to his criminal antecedents, there is least
likelihood of the applicant repeating the offence in question. As observed
above, this is a case involving no injury and the name of the applicant has
surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused which, in the
opinion of the Court, does not rule out false implication of the applicant.
8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, as discussed above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on
anticipatory bail.
9. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
10. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Ankur, involved in the
aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, on his
furnishing a personal bond and surety 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. 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. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court;
iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
NABAIL No. 8194 of 2026
3
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…