Allahabad High Court

MAHENDRA PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The Court held that a case for anticipatory bail is made out and granted bail with conditions.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Mahendra Pal under Section 482 of the CrPC in connection with FIR No. 347 of 2026 alleging offences under Sections 126(2), 352, 109(1) and 351(2) of the IPC. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging false implication and a delayed FIR, and pledged cooperation with the investigation. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Relying on the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court examined the nature of the alleged offences, the applicant’s role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing. Finding that the applicant posed no such risk and that personal liberty must be protected, the Court held that a case for anticipatory bail existed. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions restricting interference with witnesses, cooperation with investigators, and travel abroad.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC in view of the alleged offences and facts.
Whether the applicant is likely to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or abscond.
Whether the delay in FIR registration and claim of false implication affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 126(2), 351(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
personal liberty
false implication
FIR delay
conditions of bail
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8990 of 2026

Mahendra Pal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Irfanul Huda, Syed Mohd. Khalid
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State
and perused the record.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No.347 of 2026, under Sections 126(2), 352, 109(1), 351(2)
BNS, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly, with a prayer to grant
him anticipatory bail.

4. 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 alleged incident is said to have taken
place on 18.06.2024 at 21:00 hours whereas the FIR was lodged after 6
days on 24.06.2026 at 10:19 hours without any satisfactory explanation. It
is further contended that it is a case of firing wherein no one sustained any
injury. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case since
he submitted a complaint against the present informant on 20.06.2026. As
soon as the informant came to know about the complaint dated
20.06.2026, he lodged the present FIR on 24.06.2026 due to ulterior
motive. However, later on, from the side of the applicant FIR was
registered on 24.06.2026 as Case Crime No.349 of 2026 at Police Station
Nawabganj, District Bareilly. Criminal antecedent of one case has been
NABAIL No. 8990 of 2026
2

explained in the supplementary affidavit. 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 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.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

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

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1
Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The
occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is
a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely
because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that
arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of
the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of
a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the
NABAIL No. 8990 of 2026
3

accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the
officer to arrest the accused.

9. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation,
role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is
made out.

10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with
following directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mahendra Pal, involved in
aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of
trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties
each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of
the police station or the court concerned;

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during
investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer; and

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.

11. 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 21, 2026
Nitendra

Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…