Allahabad High Court
RAM KUMAR AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of any indication of interference with the investigation and given the circumstances of the delayed FIR and non‑grave injuries, anticipatory bail was appropriate.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Ram Kumar and five others in a case where a FIR, lodged three days after the alleged incident, accused them of assaulting a village Pradhan and his brother. The petitioners argued that the injuries were not life‑threatening, the FIR was delayed, and there was no evidence of them obstructing the investigation, while the State contended that one victim suffered a serious head fracture. The court noted the absence of any allegation of non‑cooperation or evidence tampering, the cross‑version of facts, and the relatively minor nature of the injuries. Weighing these factors, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The order emphasized that the observations were limited to the bail application and not an adjudication on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the FIR is delayed and the alleged injuries are not life‑threatening.
- Whether the applicants are likely to tamper with evidence or obstruct the investigation.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under the IPC warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 110, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 351(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
- injury severity
- section 482 CrPC
- IPC sections
- political motive
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8528 of 2026
Ram Kumar And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Vishvakarma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants
in Case Crime No.56 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1)
B.N.S., P.S.- Khandauli, District- Agra, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory
bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in the above-mentioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the First Information Report
has been lodged with a delay of three days against six named accused and ten to
twelve unknown persons with the allegation that the applicant and the other accused
had beaten the informant and his brother using lathi danda and sariya.The injuries
suffered by the injured are not dangerous to life.The informant is a village Pradhan
and with great deliberations and political motive after three days the names of the
accused have been introduced. A charge-sheet had been filed by the police amongst
other offences under Section 110 BNS which on the application of the informant was
sent for further investigation and during further investigation Section 109(1) of the
BNS has been added by the police. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The co-
accused Manohar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail in CRIMINAL MISC.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5305 of 2026.
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has
contended that the injured Rajkumar has received a grievous injury in the form of
fracture of frontal bone which is an injury which could be dangerous to life.
NABAIL No. 8528 of 2026
2
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material brought on the record.
6. The applicant was not arrested during investigation. The first charge sheet was
submitted amongst other offences for offence under Section 110 BNS. Presently
further investigation is continuing in which Section 109(1) of the BNS has been
added.There is no allegation against the applicant of not cooperating with the
investigation or otherwise tampering with the evidence.The First Information Report
has been lodged with a delay of three days when the informant is stated to be the
Gram Pradhan of the village.
7. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the number of
accused nominated in the First Information Report, the number and nature of injuries
suffered by the injured who are two in number and also the fact that there is a cross
version of the incident in which the accused side also claims to have received injuries,
I deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicants Ram Kumar, Ravi Jurail, Anshul
Agrawal, Pradeep Thenua, Sonveer Singh @ Sonu and Monveer Singh @ Monu,
they 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer
as and when required;
ii. that the applicants 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 them
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the
Court;
iv. that the applicants 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.
NABAIL No. 8528 of 2026
3
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
Sachin
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…