Allahabad High Court
CHOTIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied, with only a four‑week interim protection granted pending a regular bail application.
Summary
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the CrPC in a murder case where she was alleged to have thrown brickbats causing fatal head injuries to the deceased. The FIR named six accused, but two were dropped; the applicant contended she was merely present and had no prior criminal record. The prosecution argued that specific allegations established her participation and presence at the scene, making the offence heinous. The court held that the presence of the applicant and the seriousness of the charge precluded anticipatory bail, but granted a limited four‑week interim protection to enable her to apply for regular bail. No coercive action may be taken against her during this period, and the anticipatory bail application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant is alleged to have participated in a homicide.
- Whether the presence of the applicant at the scene and specific allegations under the IPC preclude anticipatory bail.
- Whether interim protection can be provided pending a regular bail application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(3), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- murder
- assault
- bail jurisprudence
- heinous offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9160 of 2026
Choti
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Najam Uz Zaman Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Pratap Singh Chauhan
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.286 of 2026, under Section 191(2), 191(3),
115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 103(1), 190 BNS, Police Station- Tappal,
District Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail as the
applicant apprehends her arrest in the above-mentioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that a general role has
been assigned to the applicant of throwing brickbats along with the other
named accused, which led to the deceased sustaining head injuries, who
expired after four days of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that out of the six
nominated accused in the FIR, co-accused Gulzar and Arfeen were taken
out of the investigation, as they were not found to be present on the spot.
5. Learned counsel has further contended that there is a cross-version and
that the applicant's side has also received injuries. There is no explanation
with respect to the injuries sustained by the applicant's side. The applicant
has no criminal antecedents.
6. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the
prayer for bail.
NABAIL No. 9160 of 2026
2
7. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that specific allegations
have been made against the applicant of participating in the crime and
throwing brickbats at the deceased. The deceased sustained serious head
injuries, which led to her death. Learned counsel has further submitted
that even in the cross-version, the presence of the applicant is established
at the time of occurrence.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
9. From the perusal of the material on record, it appears that there are
specific allegations against the applicant. At the present stage, the
disputed defence of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration.
10. This is a case where the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail. Once
the presence of the applicant at the spot is admitted, there are specific
allegations against the applicant, and the offence in question is a heinous
crime, in which one person has lost her life. No case for grant of
anticipatory bail is made out.
11. The applicant may appear before the concerned court and apply for
regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of without being
influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present
order.
12. However, taking note of the fact that the applicant is a young lady
having no criminal antecedents, it would be appropriate to grant some
interim protection to enable her to appear before the concerned court and
apply for regular bail for a period of four weeks from today.
13. For a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicant pursuant to the above-mentioned case.
14. In view of the aforesaid observations, application stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…