NARAYAN HARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 8681 of 2026

Narayan Hari
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Akhilendra Yadav, Jai Prakash Shukla,
                                Vishal Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
                 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and
perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No. 254 of 2025, under Sections 318(4) of B.N.S., P.S. Tundla,
District Firozabad, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has nothing
to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest
the applicant. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. dated 13.06.2025
which was lodged after more than four months. The alleged incident is said
to have taken place on 07.02.2025, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged, without
any explanation, on 13.06.2025. The name of the applicant has surfaced in
the confessional statement of a co-accused Chandraveer Singh. It is further
submitted that confessional statement of a co-accused is not admissible in
evidence and that co-accused Chandraveer Singh, who was named in the
F.I.R., has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application U/S 482 B.N.S.S. No. 8951 of 2025. The chargesheet has
already been submitted in this case on 30.06.2025 and cognizance has been
taken by the learned court concerned on 07.01.2026. Since the chargesheet
has already been submitted in this case, therefore, there is no requirement of
                                                             NABAIL No. 8681 of 2026
                                   2


custodial interrogation of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal
history. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required
by the court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is
granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall
cooperate with the trial, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be
imposed by the court.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

5. I have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

6. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no
allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the
investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant.

7. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :

     "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a
     Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had
     been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance
     or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed
     in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It
     has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court
     is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of
     arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of
     arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under
     Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall
     not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due
     service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii)
     above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

     12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles
     under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para
                                                             NABAIL No. 8681 of 2026
                                   3


     (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-
     bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of
     investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is
     released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
     during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient
     to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set
     out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has
     not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest
     and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
     be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not
     agree more with this."

8. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory
bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation,
role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a
fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the
matter.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following
directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant- Narayan Hari
involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.

(iii) 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; and

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.

10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 8681 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
                                    appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
                                    applicant, before the concerned court.



                                                                                      (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 30, 2026
                                    A.P. Pandey




Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad