Allahabad High Court
SHANI @ AVNEESH RAJBHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, finding no sufficient ground to deny bail.
Summary
The applicant, Shani @ Avneesh Rajbhar, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC fearing arrest in a case (Crime No. 211 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 304 and 126(2) of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed false implication arising from village politics and argued that the FIR only assigned a general role to him, with no specific involvement, and that he has no prior criminal record. The State opposed, citing a medical statement that one of the injured, Aman Rajbhar, sustained injuries dangerous to life, and contended that the delayed medical reports were due to initial treatment at a private hospital. The court examined the record, noted the absence of supplementary medico‑legal reports, the delayed examination, and the lack of concrete evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offences. Considering these facts and the applicant’s clean antecedents, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 CrPC in the absence of specific incriminating evidence against the applicant.
- Whether the delayed medical reports and the claim of injuries dangerous to life affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 304
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- medical evidence
- injury dangerous to life
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8937 of 2026
Shani @ Avneesh Rajbhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanoj Kumar
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.211 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 115(2),
304, 126(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Atraulia, District- Azamgarh, 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 has contended that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case due to village party bandi and
village politics.The applicant has been named in the F.I.R., however, no
specific role has been assigned to him.The injured, who are stated to be
four in number, have not received any injury which may be considered to
be dangerous to life. The medical examination of the injured has been
conducted after a long time on 04.06.2026 at about 05:00 P.M., whereas
the injuries were supposedly received by the injured on 03.06.2026 at
about 12:00 A.M. in the night.The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
NABAIL No. 8937 of 2026
2
and has contended that Dr. Shivaji of C.H.C. Atraulia, Azamgarh has in
his statement stated that Aman Rajbhar, one of the injured, has received
injuries which were dangerous to life.Learned A.G.A. has further stated
that the injured were initially being examined at some private hospital and
they came for medical examination at C.H.C. Atraulia, Azamgarh, after
being treated at the private hospital and it is for this reason that the injury
reports are delayed.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought on the record.
6. From a perusal of the material on record, there does not appear to be
any supplementary medico-legal report or any other X-ray or C.T. Scan
report of the injured.The injured Aman Rajbhar was examined and injury
number 1 suffered by him, out of the two visible injuries on his person,
was kept under observation and was referred to District Hospital,
Azamgarh. No abnormality has been pointed out from the C.T. Scan or X-
ray reports of the injured. Only general role has been assigned to the
applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.The medical
examination is quite delayed and from a perusal of the statement of the
injured witnesses, it appears that the medical reports of some private
hospital are not available. Reference may be made to the statement of the
injured Sangam Rajbhar and Kaushal Rajbhar.
7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to
enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
NABAIL No. 8937 of 2026
3
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Shani @ Avneesh Rajbhar,
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;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
11. 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…