RAMNATHversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 8884 of 2026

Ramnath
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Raj Guru Mauraya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A., Yogesh Mishra

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant,
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. 78 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2) and 191(3)
B.N.S., Police Station Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj, 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 nominated in the FIR. The FIR was
lodged against four co-accused persons, namely Jagmohan, Rahul, Suresh
Chandra, and Ramsevak. The applicant has been made an accused during the
course of the investigation after more than two months, only on the basis of
the statement made by the deceased. It is not clear from the statement of the
deceased as to whether the name of the applicant was taken or whether the
name of Ramdas was taken by him in his statement. The benefit of doubt
will go in favour of the applicant. The applicant has not been assigned any
specific role. The role of firing has been attributed to co-accused Jagmohan
only. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and
when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has
also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he
                                                      NABAIL No. 8884 of 2026
                                2


shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation,
and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned
A.G.A. has produced the video of the deceased, wherein the deceased has
specifically taken the name of the applicant. He did not take the name of
Ram Das in his statement. There is a dying declaration in this case, which
cannot be doubted at this stage.

5. The pen drive containing the video of the deceased has been produced
before the Court, which is returned to the learned A.G.A.

6. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record.

7. The deceased specifically took the name of the applicant in his
statement/dying declaration. At this stage, the dying declaration of the
deceased cannot be doubted. It has been held in various judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that bail is a rule but jail is an exception, but so
far as anticipatory bail is concerned, it ought to have been granted in
exceptional cases since it is an extraordinary power.

8. In the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. While called
upon to exercise the said power, the Court has to be very cautious as the
grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may
lead to miscarriage of justice. When warrant of arrest or proclamation is
issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoking extraordinary power. The
relevant paragraph no. 30 of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) is quoted as under:

     "30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory
     bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held
     that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of
     imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot
     be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the
     cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the
     facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to
                                                              NABAIL No. 8884 of 2026
                                    3


     exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very
     cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the
     accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and
     may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may
     sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We
     shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass
     an interim protection pending consideration of such application
     as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an
     individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such
     orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when
     warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not
     entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not
     deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in
     extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then,
     person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is
     not entitled to such grant."

9. In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019)
9 SCC 24, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that arrest is a part of procedure
of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but
several other purposes. The power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of
B.N.S.S. has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail
should be granted only in exceptional cases. The relevant paragraph no. 69
of P. Chidambaram (supra) is reproduced as under:

     "69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to
     secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes.
     Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same
     has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should
     be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred
     upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as
     to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant
     fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant
     of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in
     the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be
     circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail.
     Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be
                                                                  NABAIL No. 8884 of 2026
                                       4


     granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances
     exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. "

10. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant
Patil and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, relevant paragraph nos.14
and 15 whereof read as under:

     "14....................

             74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the
             investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may
             be circumstances in which the accused may provide
             information leading to discovery of material facts and
             relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper
             the investigation, Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance
             between the individual's right to personal freedom and the
             right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused
             as to the material so far collected and to collect more
             information which may lead to recovery of relevant
             information........

                      6...........

             75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation
             intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v.
             State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4
             SCC 303: 2005 SCC (Cri) 933], it was held as under: (SCC
             p. 313, para 19)

                      "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of
                      investigation   intended    to   secure    several
                      purposes. The accused may have to be
                      questioned in detail regarding various facets of
                      motive, preparation, commission and aftermath
                      of the crime and the connection of other persons,
                      if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances
                      in which the accused may provide information
                                                  NABAIL No. 8884 of 2026
                        5


      leading to discovery of material facts. It may be
      necessary to curtail his freedom in order to
      enable the investigation to proceed without
      hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons
      connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent
      his disappearance, to maintain law and order in
      the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest
      may become an inevitable part of the process of
      investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest
      cannot be gone into in an application under
      Section 438 of the Code. The role of the
      investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional
      scope of interference by the court in the process
      of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily
      will not interfere with the investigation of a
      crime or with the arrest of the accused in a
      cognizable offence. An interim order restraining
      arrest, if passed while dealing with an
      application under Section 438 of the Code will
      amount to interference in the investigation,
      which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section
      438 of the Code."

76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694: (2011) 1 SCC
(Cri) 514], the Supreme Court laid down the factors and
parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory
bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused must be
properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the
court must evaluate the available material against the
accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should
also consider whether the accusations have been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her.

77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
                                                   NABAIL No. 8884 of 2026
                       6


[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 1 SCC 694: (2011) 1 SCC (Crl) 514] and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of
Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468], the
Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 386, para 19)

     "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in
     a serious offence are required to be satisfied and
     further while granting such relief, the court must
     record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail
     can    be      granted        only   in   exceptional
     circumstances where the court is prima facie of
     the view that the applicant has falsely been
     enroped in the crime and would not misuse his
     liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T.
     Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T.
     Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC
     (Cri) 345], State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid
     Husain        Mohd.      S.     Husain    [State   of
     Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S.
     Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
     176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain
     Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain
     Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305: (2009) 1 SCC
     (Cri) 1].)"

     Economic offences

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of
economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different
class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In
Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
[Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2
SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic
                                                              NABAIL No. 8884 of 2026
                                   7


           offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

     15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
     reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Constitution Bench of this Court held that
     while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest 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 or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:-

           "92.4. 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; equally
           whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be
           imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case,
           and subject to the discretion of the court."

11. As per the allegations put forth in the FIR, serious allegations have been
levelled against the applicant. The investigation is at a preliminary stage, and
the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to unearth the truth.
Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the case
registered against the applicant is false. At this stage, there is no material on
record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the applicant.
The material that has come on record and the preliminary investigation,
appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations.

12. In view of this Court, the parameters of granting regular bail and
anticipatory bail are different and it is not necessary that the grounds which
are sufficient to enlarge an accused on regular bail must also be sufficient to
enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Further, the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of
Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 also observed that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and therefore in view of this
Court being extraordinary power it cannot be used in routine manner.

13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory
                                                                                           NABAIL No. 8884 of 2026
                                                                    8


                                    bail.

                                    14. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.




                                                                                        (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad