Allahabad High Court
RAMESHCHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Rameshchandra, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He claimed he was falsely implicated and that the only case shown against him in the gang chart was a single base case for which he was already on bail, with no prior convictions. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court considered the lack of any criminal history and the fact that the applicant was already on bail in the base case. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions, noting that the order was limited to this application and not an opinion on the merits of the underlying case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC and Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, given his lack of prior convictions and existing bail in the base case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- U.P. Gangsters Act
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8931 of 2026
Rameshchandra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Garun Pal Singh, Mahipal Singh
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.296 of 2026, under Section 2/3 of U.P.
Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. -
Sadabad Kotawali, District- Hathras, 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 applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. Only single base case has been
shown in the gang chart against the applicant and in the said case, the
applicant is on bail. The applicant has not been convicted in any offence.
The applicant has no other criminal history except the single base
case shown against him in the gang chart.
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, however, has been unable to dispute the submissions made by the
Learned counsel for the applicant.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that only single base case has been
shown against the applicant in which the applicant is on bail, having no
NABAIL No. 8931 of 2026
2
other criminal history and also the fact that applicant is not a previous
convict, I deem it fit to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
8. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Rameshchandra, 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;
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;
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
10. 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 9, 2026
Sachin
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…