Allahabad High Court
SHRIPAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to all applicants, finding no sufficient ground to deny it.
Summary
The applicants filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC in a case where they were charged under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 118(2) of the B.N.S. Act. They contended that the charge under Section 118(2) was unwarranted because the injuries sustained were not grievous, and that they were falsely implicated. The State opposed bail, highlighting the prior criminal history of applicant No.4, including a conviction under Section 60 of the Excise Act, but could not demonstrate any grievous injury. The Court observed that applicants No.1, 2 and 3 had no criminal antecedents and that the injuries were not life‑threatening, rendering the inclusion of Section 118(2) excessive. Considering the lack of prior convictions and the absence of a need for custodial interrogation, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the alleged offence under Section 118(2) B.N.S. does not involve grievous injury.
- Whether the prior criminal history of one applicant affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the charge-sheet filed under Section 118(2) B.N.S. is appropriate given the facts.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 115(2), 118(2), 351(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Excise Act — s. 60
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 118 B.N.S.
- grievous hurt
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9305 of 2026
Shripal And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hasan Parvej, Hasan Sardar
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.59 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2),
118(2) B.N.S., Police Station Quolariya, District Bareilly, with a prayer to
enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest
in the abovementioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants
have been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR initially was
lodged for offences under Section 115(2), 351(2) of the BNS. Later
during investigation, the police has added Section 118(2) BNS. Learned
counsel has stated that Section 118 BNS has two parts. One deals with
simple hurt being caused by dangerous weapons or means and the other
deals with grievous hurt caused by dangerous weapons or means. Learned
counsel states that despite there being no grievous injuries suffered by the
injured, the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet under Section
118(2) of the BNS along with other allied sections. Learned counsel
contends that the applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 have no criminal history and
applicant no. 4 has a criminal history of two cases including the present
case and one case being Case Crime No.194 of 2020 under Section 304
IPC in which the applicant is on bail.
NABAIL No. 9305 of 2026
2
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has pointed out
that the applicant no. 4 has a criminal history of one other case under
Section 60 of the Excise Act, which has not been explained. Learned
A.G.A. however could not point out any injury which could be
categorized to be grievous in nature.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
6. The applicants are not previous convicts. The applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3
do not have any criminal antecedents. The two injured have received three
injuries each and none of the injuries have been opined to be dangerous to
life. Of the cumulative six injuries suffered by the injured, two were
complaints of pain. It appears that the charge-sheet has been filed under
Section 118(2) of the BNS without there being any grievous injury
present on the injured to increase the gravity of the offence. The
applicants were not arrested during investigation and once the charge-
sheet has been filed, the applicants are no longer required for any
custodial interrogation or recoveries.
7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicants on anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants
is allowed.
9. The applicants - Shripal, Madan Lal, Mahesh and Suresh shall
appear before the trial Court within four weeks from today and shall be
released on bail on filing their personal bond and surety to the satisfaction
of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
i. The applicants shall remain present before the trial Court on each date
fixed unless exempted by the trial Court;
ii. The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;
NABAIL No. 9305 of 2026
3
iii. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court;
iv. The applicants 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 23, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…