Allahabad High Court
ANAMIKA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Since the applicants were not arrested during investigation and the injuries were not grievous, the court held that they are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC until the conclusion of the trial.
Summary
The High Court considered anticipatory bail applications filed by Anamika Singh and Abhishek Singh in a case arising from a family dispute over ancestral property, where both parties had lodged FIRs against each other. The prosecution alleged assault and minor injuries under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1) and 110 of the B.N.S., but medical reports showed only simple injuries with no grievous harm. The applicants argued they were falsely implicated, had cooperated with the investigation, and were never arrested during the inquiry. The court noted that the chargesheet had been filed without any custodial interrogation and cited the principle that non‑arrest during investigation favors bail. Relying on the precedent in Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, the court held that the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail until trial, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants under Section 482 CrPC given the nature of the alleged offences and injuries.
- Whether the invocation of Sections 109(1) and 110 of the B.N.S. is justified in the present facts.
- Whether the fact that the applicants were not arrested during investigation mandates the grant of bail.
- Whether the existence of cross FIRs and a pending criminal case against the informant affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 110, 115(2), 175(3), 351(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 170, 173, 482, 87
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- non‑bailable offence
- chargesheet
- investigation
- cross FIR
- injury nature
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8819 of 2026
Anamika Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Vajpeyi, Mayank Chandra,
Praveen Kumar Singh, Surya Pratap
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vibhu Rai
with
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8829 of 2026
Abhishek Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Singh, Mayank Chandra,
Surya Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Krishna Pratap Singh, Kunwar
Bikram Suryabansh, Vibhu Rai, Vinay
Kumar Singh Chandel
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vibhu Rai,
learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused
the record.
2. The present applications have been filed on behalf of the applicants in
Case Crime No. 134 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1),
110 of B.N.S., P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi, with a prayer to grant them
NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026
2
anticipatory bail.
3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against the
applicants and their two sons namely Ranveer Singh and Aryaveer Singh.
The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 20.03.2026 at 20:15
hours, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.03.2026 at 2:34 hours, under
Section 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110 of B.N.S. The informant alleged
that the applicants and other co-accused abused and assaulted the first
informant and her family members, pulled her stole around her neck and
attempted to cause injuries to the informant's side. The injured Viraj
Singh, Shivanshi Singh, Kiran Singh and Vishwajeet Singh, sustained
injuries in the alleged incident.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case;
they have nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police
are trying to arrest the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants
and informant's side are close relatives and a dispute was going on between
them in respect of ancestral property. The present case is a cross case and
from the side of the applicant, a Case Crime No. 214 of 2026, was
registered against the present informant party on 05.05.2026, at P.S. Cantt,
District Varanasi, in pursuance of order passed by learned magistrate under
Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. The chargesheet has been submitted in the
aforesaid case crime number on 09.04.2026 and the learned court concerned
took cognizance of offence vide order dated 01.07.2026. From the side of
applicants, the applicant Abhishek Singh and his son Aryaveer Singh
sustained injuries, whereas from the side of present informant, injured Viraj
Singh, Shivanshi Singh, Kiran Singh and Vishwajeet Singh, have sustained
injuries in the alleged incident. The injuries of aforesaid injured persons are
simple in nature. No one sustained fracture or grievous injury in the alleged
incident, therefore, no prima facie offence under Section 109(1), 110 of
B.N.S. is made out against the applicants.
5. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants
that the applicants challenged the legality and validity of the F.I.R. of Case
Crime No. 134 of 2026, by way of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7093
of 2026, and their arrest was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026
3
order dated 02.04.2026. The applicants were not arrested in this case during
course of investigation. They cooperated in the investigation. Now the
chargeshet has been submitted on 26.04.2026, and the learned court
concerned took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 01.06.2026. The
investigating officer, during course of investigation, recorded statements of
Dr. K.K. Singh and Dr. Shivesh Jaiswal, who stated that injured sustained
injuries and they were medically examined by them, however, no one stated
that the injured sustained any fracture on their person.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicants further submits that all the
injuries are simple in nature and there is no supplementary medical report in
the present case. A questionnaire from the court concerned was obtained by
the applicants in respect of supplementary medical report of the injured
which has been appended in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
8829 of 2026. As per the questionnaire, no supplementary medical report is
available in the record of the present case.
7. Further submission was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the
applicants that the applicant Abhishek Singh and his son namely Aryaveer
Singh were also subjected to physical assault and sustained injuries during
the said altercation. They were medically examined in the District Hospital
and their medical examination reports have been appended alongwith the
present application.
8. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants
that applicants' son Ranveer Singh and Aryaveer Singh are aged about 13
years and 19 years respectively. Both of them are pursing their studies. It is
next submitted that as per the statement of doctors, injuries cannot be
categorized as grievous in nature or dangerous to life. Even if the
prosecution version is accepted to be true at its face value, even then by no
stretch of imagination, an offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out.
Section 109(1) and Section 110 have been wrongly invoked in order to keep
the applicants behind the bar. It is further submitted that both sides have
received injuries and who is the aggressor, the said question cannot be
answered at this stage. The trial court, after taking entire evidence on record,
would decide this question as to which party was aggressor. It is next
submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedent to their credit. The
NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026
4
chargesheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no requirement of
custodial interrogation of the applicants. Learned Senior counsel for the
applicants lastly contended that the applicants undertake to cooperate during
trial and shall appear as and when required by the court concerned. It has
also been stated that, in case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail,
they 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.
9. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition filed by the applicants was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2026.
From the side of informant, four persons received injuries. The incident is
admitted to the applicants. The anticipatory bail application moved by the
present applicants are liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
11. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no
allegation against the applicants that they do not cooperate with the
investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicants. The applicants and the informant are close relatives. Both sides
lodged F.I.R. against each others. From the side of informant, four persons
sustained injuries on their body, however, no injury was opined to be
dangerous to life or grievous in nature. There is no supplement medical
report on record. A cross case was lodged from the side of applicants,
wherein after due investigation, chargesheet has been submitted on
19.06.2026. The applicants were not arrested during course of investigation
and now the chargesheet has been submitted against them on 26.04.2026.
The learned court concerned took cognizance of the offence vide order dated
01.06.2026. The applicants were not arrested during course of investigating,
therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the present
applicants.
12. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :
NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026
5
"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
(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."
13. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory
bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation,
role of applicants 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 applicants till conclusion of trial in the
matter.
14. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following
directions:-
NABAIL No. 8819 of 2026
6
(i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicants- Anamika Singh and
Abhishek Singh involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory
bail till the conclusion of trial, on their 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 applicants 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.
15. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
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 14, 2026
A.P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…