Allahabad High Court
LAKHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate and granted it to the applicant till the conclusion of the trial.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Lakhan Singh in a 2014 FIR alleging misappropriation of scholarship funds, with charges under IPC sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B. The applicant contended that the charge‑sheet was filed without solid evidence, that co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, and that he had no criminal antecedents. The State opposed, arguing that the applicant’s role was similar to the co‑accused and that bail should not be automatically extended. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Sushila Aggarwal (2020) regarding the factors for granting anticipatory bail, the court examined the nature of the offence, the applicant’s role, and the risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing. Concluding that there was no compelling reason to deny bail and that parity with co‑accused warranted relief, the court granted anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial, subject to bond, sureties and specific conditions, and directed the trial to be completed within one year under Section 309 CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC in view of the nature of the offences and his alleged role.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to co‑accused mandates a similar grant to the applicant on the principle of parity.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or fleeing justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 309, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
- misappropriation of scholarship
- bail conditions
- speedy trial
- Section 309 CrPC
- co‑accused parity
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 870 of 2026
Lakhan Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.
This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2014, under Sections 409, 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Mursan, District Hathras,
during the pendency of the trial.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
present FIR was lodged in the year 2014 against the several accused with
the allegation that they have misappropriated the scholarship amount of
the students and after investigation with malafide intention, the charge
sheet has been submitted without collecting the cogent evidence and
entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. It is
submitted that similarly situated co-accused of the applicant namely
Umesh Kumar, Ajmeri Alias Mohd Ajmeri, Manish Goswami, Mohd.
Shamshad Ali and Adhir Pachauri, have been enlarged on anticipatory
bail by this Court vide its orders dated 23.04.2026, 18.02.2026,
17.12.2025 and 02.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application U/S 482 BNSS No.- 782 of 2026 (Umesh Kumar vs State of
U.P.), No. 10986 of 2025 (Ajmeri Alias Mohd Ajmeri and Another Vs.
State of U.P.), No. 10063 of 2025 (Mohd Shamshad Ali Vs. State of U.P.)
and No. - 11064 of 2025 (Adhir Pachauri Vs. State of U.P. and Another),
respectively. He submits that case of the applicant stands on similar
NABAIL No. 870 of 2026
2
footing to that of the co-accused, who have already been enlarged on
anticipatory bail by this Court, therefore, similar indulgence may also be
granted in favour of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. It is next submitted that applicant is having apprehension of
arrest by the police any time in the above-mentioned case, whereas there
is no credible evidence against him. If the applicant is enlarged on bail on
parity, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the
investigation/trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Learned AGA submitted that similar role has been assigned to the present
applicant and does not dispute the fact that the co-accused of the applicant
have already granted bail by this Court.
In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,
(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the
subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited
duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion
of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can,
depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after
filing of the charge sheet till trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory
bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the
person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or
tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of
fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held
that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the
nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and
the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail,
or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail,
nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant
till the trial.
The application is allowed accordingly.
NABAIL No. 870 of 2026
3
Further, applicant-Lakhan Singh is directed to appear before the court
concerned within ten days from today along with the certified copy of this
order, and shall furnish personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, and he shall be released
on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned
on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.
(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police office.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court and if he/she has passport, the same shall be deposited by
him/her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for
cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
It is further directed that the trial court shall conclude the trial of the case,
strictly in view of the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., as expeditiously
as possible, within a period of one year, from the date of production of
this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the
parties, if there is no legal impediment.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 18, 2026
Brijesh
Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…