Allahabad High Court

YASH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to applicant No.1 under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed under CrPC Section 482 on behalf of Yash (applicant No.1) in a case involving alleged violence between two rival groups. The FIR named twelve accused and six to seven unknown persons, but no specific role was assigned to the applicant, and the injuries reported were not grievous. The applicant had no prior criminal record, and the court noted the possibility of false implication given the number of accused. After evaluating the facts, the court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to standard conditions such as cooperation with police interrogation and no intimidation of witnesses. The bail order required the applicant to furnish a personal bond and surety, and it stipulated that any breach of conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC given the facts of the FIR.
Whether the absence of a specific role and lack of grievous injury justify bail.
Whether the applicant's clean record and possibility of false implication warrant anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 — s. 7
Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 125, 131, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
false implication
no criminal antecedents
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8545 of 2026

Yash And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Kumar, Surbhi Bhardwaj,
Ulajhan Singh Bind
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.0306 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
190, 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125, 131 BNS, 2023 and Section 7 of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Police Station- Kosikalan,
District Mathura, 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 applicants has contended that the police has
lodged an FIR against 12 named accused and 6-7 unknown persons
showing the arrest of 4 named accused and recovery of 2 sticks with the
allegation that two parties, one headed by Rahul @ Chaina son of
Moolchand and Moolchand son of Kanhaiya and the other headed by
Rajpal son of Devi Sahay and Rinku son of Yogesh @ Titu, who had an
old enmity, were indulging in violence, assaulting each other. The police
responded on the information received on the number 112 and is said to
have arrested Rahul @ Chaina, Moolchand son of Kanhaiya, Rajpal son
of Devi Sahay and Rinku son of Yogesh @ Titu. In the medico-legal
examination of the four persons arrested, except Rahul @ Chaina, none of
the accused were found to have received any visible injury and even the
two injuries received by Rahul @ Chaina were opined to be simple in
NABAIL No. 8545 of 2026
2

nature. No specific role has been given to the applicant. The applicant has
no criminal antecedents.

4. The learned AGA has informed this Court that applicant no. 2 has been
arrested and in view of the statement given by the learned AGA, which
has also been accepted by learned counsel for the applicant, the
application so far as the applicant no. 2 is concerned, is dismissed as
having become infructuous.

5. For the applicant no. 1, this Court has considered the anticipatory bail
application on its own merits.

6. The FIR has been lodged by the police. No specific role has been given
to the applicant no. 1. None of the injured has received any injury which
could be categorized to be grievous in nature or dangerous to life. The
applicant no. 1 has no criminal antecedents and taking note of the number
of accused nominated in the FIR, false implication of the applicant cannot
be ruled out.

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 no.1 on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application so far as the
applicant no.1 is concerned, is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant, Yash (applicant no.1), 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;
NABAIL No. 8545 of 2026
3

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.

(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…