Allahabad High Court
RISHABHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, enlarging the applicant on bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The applicant Rishabh filed an anticipatory bail application under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 131 and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code, fearing arrest in a case arising from a road‑traffic accident that allegedly turned into a fabricated assault. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, was not named in the FIR, and that the initial medical report showed no grievous injury, while a later report after a month noted old fractures. The State and the informant argued that the injured party sustained serious head injuries dangerous to life. The Court observed contradictory medical opinions, no specific role assigned to the applicant, and the possibility of false implication, especially given a property dispute and familial connections among co‑accused. Considering the applicant’s clean record and the grant of anticipatory bail to a similarly situated co‑accused, the Court enlarged the applicant on anticipatory bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of involvement in a serious assault.
- Whether the medical evidence of grievous injuries is sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal antecedents and the possibility of false implication warrant grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 131, 351(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- medical evidence
- IPC sections 109 115 131 351
- property dispute
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9573 of 2026
Rishabh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Singh, Ajeet Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Sri Akash Garg, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the
first informant,which is taken on record.
2. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the
State, Sri Akash Garg, learned counsel for the first informant and perused
the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.110 of 2026, under Sectios 109(1), 115(2),
131, 351(2) BNS, Police Station- Nakur, District Saharanpur, with a
prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his
arrest in the above-mentioned case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not named in the FIR.
The injured received injuries in a road traffic accident, but subsequently a
case of assault was manufactured and the FIR was lodged on the next day.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the initial medical
examination, no grievous injury or any injury which could be categorized
as dangerous to life was found. On an application moved before the
District Magistrate, a fresh medical examination was conducted after
more than one month of the incident, in which grievous injuries were
noted on the head of the injured Rajbir. Co-accused Rishipal has been
NABAIL No. 9573 of 2026
2
granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL No.9379 of 2026. The
applicant has no previous criminal case to his credit and it is only post his
implication in the present case that another case has been lodged against
the applicant, in which applicant is contemplating his legal remedies.
6. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the
prayer for bail and have contended that the injured Rajbir sustained
serious head injuries. His skull bones were found fractured in the fresh
medical examination conducted pursuant to the order of the District
Magistrate. Fracture of the right parietal bone extending to the right
temporal bone and fracture of the left temporal bone were found. The
injuries in question are dangerous to life.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
8. The applicant is not stated to have any criminal antecedents, however,
post his implication in the present case, one another case has been lodged
against him. From the perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is a
property dispute between the family of the applicant and the injured. Co-
accused Amarnath is the father of the applicant. Another accused Rishipal
is the grand father of the applicant.
9. Initially, the FIR was registered for offences under Sections 131(2),
115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS. The second medical examination, in which
grievous injuries have been found, was conducted after more than one
month of the occurrence, and even in the second medical examination, old
fractures have been noted.
10. Prima facie, in the opinion of the Court, there are contradictory
medical opinions and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant
in causing the head injuries. In view of the entire facts and circumstances
of the case as discussed above, false implication of the applicant cannot
be ruled out. Similarly situated co-accused Rishipal has been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court.
11. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to
NABAIL No. 9573 of 2026
3
enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
12. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
13. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Rishabh, 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;
14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
15. 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 16, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…