Allahabad High Court

PRASHANT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail could be granted under Section 482 as the FIR was prima facie suspicious and did not warrant denial of bail.

Summary

The applicant, Prashant Kumar, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC, fearing arrest in a case alleging that he and others promised public employment in exchange for money. He contended that the FIR was false, filed after a long delay, and that no such employment could be obtained by payment. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the impossibility of securing employment through money. The court noted the suspicious nature of the FIR, the delay in filing, and the lack of criminal antecedents, and, without passing on the merits, decided to grant anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The bail was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to conditions such as cooperation with police, no intimidation of witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 of the CrPC in view of the alleged false FIR and the nature of the allegations.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the suspicious facts justify denial of bail.
Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record influences the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2), 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
false FIR
public employment scam
Uttar Pradesh
bail conditions
IPC offences

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9258 of 2026

Prashant Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Patel
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.171 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352,
351(3), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, Police Station- Friends Colony,
District Etawah, 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. A false First Information
Report has been lodged with an excessive delay. The allegation is of the
applicant and the other accused had promised public employment to the
informant, as the applicant had good relations with people in the Staff
Selection Commission. The learned counsel has further submitted that no
employment in any post advertised by the Staff Selection Commission
could be obtained by payment of money and absolutely false allegations
have been made. The applicant and the informant were friends, and petty
transactions between friends have been used for the purposes of
concocting a false case to extort an exorbitant amount of money from the
applicant and the other accused. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute
NABAIL No. 9258 of 2026
2

the fact that no employment under the Staff Selection Commission can be
had on payment of money.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.

6. This Court, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4985 of 2026, while
dismissing the petition and refusing to interfere in the F.I.R., made the
following observations:

"...These are disputed defences, which, in the present writ petition, challenging the
FIR, cannot be gone into by us. Money taken from members of the public for offering
employment under the Government by unauthorized men, has become a menace. No
doubt, it is equally a menace that the public too, are ready to shell out money,
virtually becoming parties, to the offence themselves."

7. In the opinion of the Court, paying money to secure public employment
shows the dishonest nature of the informant himself. The allegations
made in the F.I.R. prima facie appear to be suspicious. The monetary
transactions were made in the year 2023 and alleged joining letter was
also given to the informant on 21.07.2023 but the F.I.R. came to be
lodged on 07.07.2026. The allegations made in the F.I.R., in the opinion
of the Court, appear to be highly suspicious and not worth relying upon.

8. 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.

9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

10. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Prashant Kumar, 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;
NABAIL No. 9258 of 2026
3

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;

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

12. 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
S.A.

Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…