Allahabad High Court
ROHITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
In the absence of direct evidence and given the applicant’s clean record, anticipatory bail was granted despite reliance on co-accused confessional statements.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Rohit, who feared arrest in a criminal case (Crime No. 428 of 2024) where his name appeared only in the confessional statements of co-accused. The applicant argued he was falsely implicated and had no prior convictions. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant’s clean record. The Court noted the lack of any direct evidence against Rohit, relying solely on the co-accused statements, and found no reason to deny bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, emphasizing that the order does not reflect on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted when the only incriminating material is the confessional statement of co-accused?
- Does the applicant’s clean criminal record and absence of direct evidence justify the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- co-accused
- no direct evidence
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9262 of 2026
Rohit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Narain Pathak
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.428 of 2024, under Section 309(4) B.N.S.,
Police Station- Cant, District- Gorakhpur, 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. There is no direct evidence
against the applicant. The name of the applicant has been disclosed in the
confessional statement of the co-accused Yogesh, Rahul and Prince and
from the possession of the co-accused two motorcycles were recovered.
Learned counsel has stated that on the basis of the same recovery memo
the applicant has been implicated in two cases and in one case the
applicant has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
23.09.2026. The applicant is not a previous convict.
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail but does not dispute the explanation given by the applicant regarding
NABAIL No. 9262 of 2026
2
his criminal antecedents.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought on the record.
6. The name of the applicant has been disclosed in the confessional
statement of the co-accused. The applicant has similarly been considered
for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court in Case Crime No. 428 of
2024. The applicant does not have any other criminal case to his credit.
Except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no other
direct evidence against the applicant.
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.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Rohit, 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
NABAIL No. 9262 of 2026
3
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 30, 2026
Sachin
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…