Allahabad High Court

RAJ KUMAR GAUTAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

Anticipatory bail is denied to Applicant No.1 but granted to Applicant No.2 subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by two applicants in a 2017 case involving offences under Sections 323, 354(D), 392, 427, 436, 452 and 504 IPC. Applicant No.1 was denied bail because he has a history of eight criminal cases, seven of which were disclosed, indicating a pattern of alleged wrongdoing. Applicant No.2, a female sweeper named Smt. Maya Devi, claimed false implication in a property dispute and had only two prior cases, both filed by the same informant’s son, with no other criminal record. The State opposed bail but did not contest the explanation of her antecedents. After evaluating the material, the Court held that Applicant No.2 was not an absconder and granted her anticipatory bail with standard conditions, while dismissing the application of Applicant No.1.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Applicant No.1 despite multiple prior criminal cases.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Applicant No.2 given her limited criminal antecedents and alleged false implication.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354(D), 392, 427, 436, 452, 504

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
false implication
non‑bailable warrant
bail conditions
Uttar Pradesh

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9241 of 2026

Raj Kumar Gautam And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raja Ullah Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants and Learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in Case Crime No.2191 of 2017, under Sections 323, 354(D),
392, 427, 436, 452, 504 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District
Shahjahanpur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the
applicants apprehend their arrest in the abovementioned case.

3. The Court is not inclined to consider the case of the applicant no. 1 for
grant of anticipatory bail as he is stated to have a criminal history of eight
cases and only seven of which have been explained in the application.

4. The application so far as the applicant no. 1 is concerned is hereby
dismissed.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties, for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant no.2 has contended that the applicant
no. 2 is a lady and is working as a 'Sweeper' at Shahjahanpur. She claims
to have been falsely implicated by the informant due to property dispute.
The previous criminal cases registered against the applicant no.2, which
are two in number; being Case Crime No.750 of 2019, which has been
filed by Mukul, the son of the informant and the applicant has been
NABAIL No. 9241 of 2026
2

granted interim protection from this Court in Application under Section
528 BNSS No.38343 of 2025; another case being Case Crime No.351 of
2023 has also been lodged by Mukul, the son of the informant, against the
applicant no.2 in which a final report has been submitted. The applicant
has no other criminal antecedents.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute
the explanation given by the applicant with respect to her criminal
antecedents.

8. From the perusal of the entire material on record, there appears to be a
long standing dispute between the applicant no.2 and the family of the
informant. The other two cases that have been registered against the
applicant have also been registered by Mukul, who is the son of the
informant. The applicant is a lady having no other criminal case to her
credit. The case although is of the year 2017 and non-bailable warrants
are stated to be pending execution against the applicant, in the opinion of
the Court the facts of the case are such which indicate that the applicant
No.2, who has been pursuing an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
No.26018 of 2023 before this Court cannot be termed to be an absconder.

9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant No.2 on anticipatory bail.

10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
No.2 is allowed.

11. In the event of the arrest of the applicant No.2-Smt. Maya Devi, she
shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail
on furnishing a personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Station
House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following
conditions:-

i. the applicant No.2 shall make herself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

ii. that the applicant No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
NABAIL No. 9241 of 2026
3

the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;

iii. that the applicant No.2 shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;

iv. that the applicant No.2 shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

13. 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 23, 2026
A. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…