Allahabad High Court
X JUVENILEversusSTATE OF UP
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the minor applicant, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by X, a minor, who alleged false inclusion in an FIR relating to violent incidents. The applicant, represented by counsel Abhishek Mishra, argued lack of criminal antecedents and pointed to a similar co-accused, Saurabh Chauhan, who had been granted anticipatory bail in a related case. The State, represented by G.A., did not dispute the applicant's clean record but opposed bail. After reviewing the facts, the court noted the case involved no injury and that the applicant's position was stronger than the co-accused's. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to the minor, subject to standard conditions and a personal bond through his natural guardian.
Issues considered
- Whether a minor falsely implicated in an FIR is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal record and the grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused justify granting bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under anticipatory bail are appropriate in the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 121(1), 125, 132, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- minor
- false FIR
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Law Amendment Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9304 of 2026
X (Minor)
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that present
application was filed with a defective description, mentioning the
applicant as “X (Juvenile),” whereas it should have been “X (Minor).” A
supplementary affidavit along with a fresh array of parties has already
been filed, but the description of the case has not yet been amended by the
Registry.
2. The Registry is directed to amend the cause title of this case
accordingly.
3. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.368 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 191(2),
191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125, 121(1), 132 BNS and Section 7
Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Akrabad, District Aligarh,
with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant
apprehends his arrest in the above-mentioned case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
been falsely nominated in the FIR along with five other accused. He has
further submitted that the similarly situated co-accused, Saurabh
Chauhan, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL
NABAIL No. 9304 of 2026
2
No.9325 of 2026. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, but after his
implication in the present case, a false case has been registered against
him.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the
explanation given by the applicant with respect to his criminal
antecedents, nor does he dispute the fact that the similarly situated co-
accused, Saurabh Chauhan, has been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
7. This is a case involving no injury. The allegation is that two groups
indulged in violence, and the FIR has been lodged by the Outpost In-
charge, Sub-Inspector Virendra Kumar. The applicant is stated to be a
minor, and in the prima facie opinion of the Court, taking note of the
entire facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the applicant stands
on a better footing than that of the co-accused, Saurabh Chauhan.
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 X (Minor), 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 through his
natural guardian 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
NABAIL No. 9304 of 2026
3
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 16, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…