Allahabad High Court

NARESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that, based on the applicant’s innocence, lack of evidentiary support and the principles laid down in Supreme Court precedents, anticipatory bail under Section 105 CrPC must be granted with conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Naresh under Section 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case (Crime No.274 of 2026) where he was alleged to be involved in the death of an informant's wife. The applicant claimed innocence, citing lack of mens rea, delayed FIR filing, absence of eyewitnesses, and no corroborative evidence, while the prosecution did not dispute the facts but opposed bail. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing the need to assess the nature of the offence, the applicant’s role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing. Finding that the applicant’s circumstances and the lack of evidentiary support warranted bail, the Court exercised its discretion to grant anticipatory bail with specific conditions. The order directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond, cooperate with investigation, refrain from influencing witnesses, and not leave India without permission.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 105 CrPC given the facts of the case.
Whether the applicant’s alleged lack of mens rea and the absence of corroborative evidence justify the grant of bail.
Whether the court should impose conditions on the anticipatory bail to prevent tampering with evidence or fleeing.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 105, 180

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 105 CrPC
personal liberty
false implication
evidence
bail conditions
investigation cooperation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION
U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9404 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shekhar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

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

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.274 of 2026, under Section 105
B.N.S., Police Station- Shahganj, District Agra, with a prayer to
grant him anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that
the police are trying to arrest him. There is no mens rea on the
part of the applicant to commit the alleged offence. The alleged
incident is said to have taken place on 13.06.2026, whereas the
FIR was lodged after two days on 15.06.2026, without any
satisfactory explanation. The applicant and co-accused Vijay
Singh were nominated in the FIR dated 15.06.2026. It is next
submitted that co-accused Vijay Singh has been enlarged on
regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
31.08.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30346 of
2026. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the
wife of the informant sustained injuries and died on 13.06.2026 at
about 17:51 hours due to fall of a boundary wall. However, as per
the inquest report, the information regarding her death was
NABAIL No. 9404 of 2026
2

furnished to the concerned police station by her son only on
15.06.2026 at about 13:00 hours. The time of the alleged incident
finds no mention either in the first information report or in the
statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S.
It is further submitted that the inquest proceedings were
conducted on 15.06.2026, prior to lodging of the first information
report, and the informant himself was one of the witnesses to the
inquest proceedings, yet the inquest report finds no reference of
the alleged incident or any allegation against the applicant. The
first information report was thereafter lodged at 17:15 hours on
15.06.2026 implicating the applicant. It is next submitted that
there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence and no
information was furnished to the police prior to 15.06.2026
regarding the alleged disappearance of the deceased. The
applicant being neighbour of the informant has been falsely
implicated due to prior enmity. At this stage there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The
applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall
appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or the
Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant
is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail,
shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the
conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application
for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual
aspect.

5. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused
the record.

6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory
bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of
the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of
investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating
NABAIL No. 9404 of 2026
3

witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the
country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity
of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts
of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail,
or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022)
1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional
mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation
arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a
heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the
witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can
be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be
made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the
power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is
made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and
self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason
to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and
has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then
there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

8. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory
bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of
accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on
merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with
following directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Naresh, involved in the
aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station
concerned or the court concerned.

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer
NABAIL No. 9404 of 2026
4

during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer
as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(iii) 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 her/him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court.

10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public
Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is
at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned
court.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

September 18, 2026
Radhika

Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…