Allahabad High Court

AMAN PRATAPversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court held that, given the applicant is not named in the FIR, has only a general alleged role, and possesses no prior criminal antecedents, anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC is warranted.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Aman Pratap under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with Crime No. 195 of 2025. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and only a general role was ascribed to him in the injured witnesses' statements, while the specific assault with scissors was attributed to co‑accused Satyam. The informant contended that the applicant participated in the assault, citing additional injuries on the victims. The Court noted that the applicant is absent from the FIR, has no prior criminal record, and that the allegations against him are distinct from those against the co‑accused. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient ground to deny bail and granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The order directs that if arrested, the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond and surety.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC despite allegations of participation in the assault.
Whether the applicant's absence from the FIR and lack of prior criminal record justify the grant of bail.
Whether the evidence presented by the informant is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
false implication
FIR
criminal antecedents
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9380 of 2026

Aman Pratap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Mishra, Shashank Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vikash Kumar, G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, and learned A.G.A. for
the State as well as perused the record.

2. A Short Counter Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the
applicant today is taken on record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf
of the applicant in Case Crime No. 195 of 2025, under Sections
115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 131, 118(1) of BNS, P.S. Khandauli,
District Agra, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as
the applicant apprehend his arrest in the abovementioned case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not
named in the FIR. His name has been disclosed in the statements
of the injured witnesses. The general role of assault has been
assigned to the applicant. Specific role of using a sharp edged
weapon (scissors) of assaulting Uttam and Yash has been given to
co accused Satyam. Learned counsel for the applicant has further
submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the
applicant had participated in the incident. He had also assaulted
the injured. Although, the sharp edged weapon has been assigned
NABAIL No. 9380 of 2026
2

to co accused Satyam, however, there are other injuries present on
the person of the injured, which indicates active participation of the
applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted
that the father of the injured, who is the informant, did not know the
accused persons and it is only after medical aid was provided to
the injured that they were able to disclose the name of the actual
assailants.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned
counsels for the parties.

7. The applicant is not named in the FIR. Even in the statements of
the injured, a general role has been assigned to the applicant.
Specific role of using a pair of scissors has been given to Satyam.
Grievous injuries were inflicted by Satyam. The case of the
applicant stands on a separate footing from that of co accused
Satyam (not named in the FIR) and Kanha, who is named in the
FIR.

8. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
especially the fact that the applicant has no repeated criminal
antecedents, I deem it appropriate to enlarge applicants 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- Aman Pratap, he
shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on
anticipatory bail on furnishing of his personal bond and surety 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 themselves 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
NABAIL No. 9380 of 2026
3

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.

October 1, 2026
RavindraKSingh

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…