Allahabad High Court

SACHINversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court held that, on a prima facie basis, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC as the alleged offences do not attract a punishment exceeding seven years and there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing or tampering with evidence.

Summary

The applicant, Sachin, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 110, 352 and 115(2) of the B.N.S. Act, claiming false implication and asserting that the injuries to parties on both sides were mutual. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the applicant was a principal accused and that the injuries, particularly a fracture to one victim, were grievous. The Court noted that the applicant had not been arrested during investigation, the offences carried a maximum punishment of less than seven years, and there was no clear indication of who the aggressor was. Considering the applicant’s clean antecedents and the prima facie nature of the case, the Court found the criteria for anticipatory bail under Section 482 satisfied. Consequently, the application was allowed with conditions requiring the applicant to cooperate with police, not tamper with witnesses, not leave India without permission, and to furnish a personal bond and surety. The order also clarified that the observations were limited to the bail application and not an adjudication on the merits of the criminal case.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 CrPC when the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of less than seven years.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or repeating the alleged offences.
Whether the fact that the applicant was not arrested during investigation influences the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 110, 115(2), 352
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
false implication
injury
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. - 9399 of 2026

Sachin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Agarval
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 Criminal Case No. 3208 of 2026 (arising out of Case Crime No.
527 of 2025), under Sections 110, 352 and 115(2) of B.N.S., Police Station-
Kotwali Dehat, District -Bulandshahr, 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 contends that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. There are cross versions and both the
sides have received injuries. Three persons from the side of the applicant
have received injuries including mother of the applicant. The offences in
question in the event of a conviction do not entail a punishment of more than
7 years. The applicant was not arrested during investigation and now once a
charge sheet has been filed, he is no longer required for any custodial
interrogation.
4. The Learned counsel for informant has opposed the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail and has submitted that the applicant is one of the main
accused in the present case. The three injured have received grievous injuries
and one of the injured Sunil has received injuries, which could be
categorized to be dangerous to life as he has received a fracture of right
parietal bone.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the cross version
has been lodged only to circumvent the prosecution in the present case.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and
has adopted the submissions made by learned counsel for the informant.
NABAIL No. 9399 of 2026
2

7. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought on the record.
8. The applicant was not arrested during the investigation. There are cross
cases and both the sides claim injuries. In the opinion of the Court, it would
not be appropriate to hold which side is the aggressor at the present stage.
The offences in question in the event of a conviction do not entail a
punishment of more than 7 years. The offences under section 110 BNS is
triable by Court of Sessions.

9. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
prima facie opinion of the Court, case for grant of anticipatory bail is made
out. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, they have
been appropriately explained and in the opinion of the Court, applicant is not
likely to repeat such offence in the near future.

10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is
allowed.
11. In the event of the arrest of the applicant -Sachin, 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 of
the Court;
iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
13. 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.
September 11, 2026
Sartaj
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…