Allahabad High Court
AKASH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate in the present case and granted it with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Akash Singh, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged vehicle damage, extortion, assault, and theft of a gold chain. He claimed the FIR was false, arising from a dispute with a friend who demanded Rs.12 lakh for repairs. The State opposed bail, arguing the offences were established and a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued. The Court examined the facts, noted the dispute among friends, and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Asha Dubey (2024) that a Section 82 proclamation does not automatically bar anticipatory bail. Considering the circumstances, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, allowing the applicant’s release upon arrest.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the alleged offences (damage to vehicle, extortion, assault, theft) justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the dispute between the parties affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act, 2023 — s. 115, 309, 316, 324, 351, 352, 84
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 82
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 82 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- false FIR
- extortion
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9394 of 2026
Akash Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Kumar Singh, Shashank
Pandey, Shubham Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Jitendra
Kumar
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant 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
applicant in Case Crime No. 241 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 309(4),
316(2), 324(5), 352, 351(3) of BNS, 2023, P.S. Manduadih, District
Varanasi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the
applicant apprehend his arrest in the abovementioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that applicant is the
friend of the informant. The applicant had borrowed the informant's car
for attending a wedding. The car unfortunately met with an accident and
the informant was trying to extort Rs. 12 lacs as repair costs for the car,
which when the applicant refused to pay, this false FIR was lodged
against the applicant. Applicant has no criminal antecedent.
4. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and
has contended that the applicant not only destroyed the vehicle of the
informant but also refused to pay the repair costs. The applicant then
abused the informant and also assaulted him. A Gold chain, weighing 8
grams, was also snatched by the applicant. The offences are clearly made
out; no indulgence may be granted to the applicant and his application
may be dismissed.
NABAIL No. 9394 of 2026
2
5. Learned counsel for the informant has further argued that process under
Section 84 BNSS has been issued against the applicant on 26.8.2026.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
7. It is an admitted case in the FIR that the applicant and informant are
friends. The applicant supposedly borrowed a vehicle of the informant
and the said vehicle met with an accident. The estimate of the repairs was
stated to be Rs. 12 Lacs, which the applicant refused to pay.
8. In the opinion of the Court, taking note of the assertions made in the
FIR, there appears to be some dispute amongst friends regarding repair of
the vehicle in question. The allegation of snatching a gold chain of 8
grams, prima-facie appears to be only to increase the gravity of the
offence.
9. It is not in all cases that the jurisdiction of the court is barred from
entertaining the application of anticipatory bail where the proclamation
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. The Supreme Court in the case
of Asha Dubey Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC Online SC
5633, under paragraph no. 8 of the said decision has held that it is not
as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the
application for the grant of anticipatory bail. The relevant paragraph
numbers 8 & 9 are quoted as under:-
"8. Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the
event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is
not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on
considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail.
9. When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this Court
will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the
offence and the background based on which such a
proclamation was issued. Suffice it is to state that it is a fit case
for grant of anticipatory bail, on the condition that the appellant
shall cooperate with the further investigation. However, liberty
is also given to the respondents to seek cancellation of bail that
NABAIL No. 9394 of 2026
3
has been granted, in the event of a violation of the conditions
which are to be imposed by the Trial Court or if there are any
perceived threats against the witnesses"
10. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicants on anticipatory bail.
11. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
12. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Akash Singh, 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 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;
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
October 1, 2026
RavindraKSingh
Digitally signed by :-
RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…