Allahabad High Court

MANOJ AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, subject to conditions, without passing on the merits of the case.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court entertained an anticipatory bail application filed by Manoj and two others under CrPC Section 482 in a criminal case (Crime No.259 of 2026) involving alleged offences under several IPC sections. The applicants claimed false implication, noting a 15‑day delay in filing the FIR and the absence of any life‑threatening injuries to the two victims. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that one victim suffered a dislocated shoulder, a grievous injury, and that the applicants were specifically named in the FIR. The Court observed that the injuries, though on vital parts, were not dangerous to life and that the FIR delay raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegations. Considering the lack of criminal antecedents and the overall circumstances, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accused are specifically named in the FIR and the alleged injuries are grievous.
Whether a 15‑day delay in lodging the FIR indicates false implication sufficient to justify bail.
Whether the absence of prior criminal record influences the decision on anticipatory bail.
Whether the nature and severity of injuries (not dangerous to life) affect the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115, 117, 191, 333, 351, 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
delay in FIR
grievous injury
IPC sections
CrPC Section 482
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8543 of 2026

Manoj And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Pundir
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.259 of 2026, under Section 191(2), 117(2),
109(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 333 BNS, Police Station- Behat, District
Saharanpur, 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 applicants has contended that the applicants
have been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR has been lodged
after about 15 days of the occurrence. There are two injured and none of
the injured have received any injury which can be considered to be
dangerous to life. A general role has been given to the applicants and the
applicants have no criminal antecedents.

4. The learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended
that the one of the injured has suffered from dislocation of the shoulder
which is a grievous injury. The applicants have been specifically named
in the FIR and may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned AGA, however, could not dispute the fact that applicants have no
criminal antecedents.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
NABAIL No. 8543 of 2026
2

6. Of the two injured, the injured Kanwar Pal Singh has received six
injuries and the injured Mohit has also received six injuries. Out of six
injuries suffered by Kanwar Pal Singh, one lacerated wound has been
found on his forehead and two lacerated wounds have been found on the
skull and the elbow joint of the injured Mohit. The lacerated wounds,
although, on a vital part of the body have not been opined to be dangerous
to life. Even otherwise, the FIR is delayed by 15 days and in the opinion
of the Court, such excessive delay in the lodging of the FIR as well as the
entire facts and circumstances of the case do not rule out the false
implication of the applicant.

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 applicants on anticipatory bail.

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 Manoj, Neeraj and
Sandeep, 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
NABAIL No. 8543 of 2026
3

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.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
S.A.

Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…