Allahabad High Court

NAVEEN RAIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court held that the lack of direct evidence and the mere coincidence of the applicant’s location with co‑accused do not preclude granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Naveen Rai under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving alleged assault under several IPC sections. The applicant argued he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and had no criminal record, with only call detail records linking him to a co‑accused. The State contended that the assault was brutal and the call records indicated complicity. The Court examined the FIR, the co‑accused’s statements, and the call records, concluding that mere presence at the same location does not prove participation. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, noting that the order does not prejudice the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Whether the call detail records and the applicant’s presence at the same location as co‑accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Whether the absence of the applicant’s name in the FIR and lack of direct evidence justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 119(2), 131, 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
IPC sections 119 115 131 352 109
false implication
call detail records
no criminal antecedents
assault
Ghaziabad

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9586 of 2026

Naveen Rai
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Belal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shivang

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

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shivang, 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.591 of 2026, under Sections 119(2), 115(2),
131, 352, 109(1) B.N.S., Police Station-Indrapuram, District-Ghaziabad,
with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant
apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case.

3. 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,
which has been lodged against 6-7 unknown persons. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. One co-
accused, Om Dhama, was arrested by the police and in his confessional
statement, he has only taken the name of co-accused Himanshu Rana and
Nitish and has not taken the name of the applicant. Learned counsel has
further submitted that except call detail records, where the applicant is
stated to be in contact with the co-accused Om Dhama, there is no other
direct evidence against the applicant. None of the eye-witnesses have
named the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and Learned A.G.A. have opposed
the prayer for bail and have contended that the injured was brutally
NABAIL No. 9586 of 2026
2

assaulted using hard and blunt objects. The head injuries were found to be
dangerous to life. There is a fracture of the fibula also present. The brutal
manner in which the incident has been perpetrated clearly disentitles the
applicant for consideration of anticipatory bail. They have further
submitted that the call detail records also establish the complicity of the
applicant. No reason has been given for the false implication of the
applicant. Learned counsel for the informant and Learned A.G.A. have
not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

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

6. The FIR has been lodged against 6-7 unknown persons. One co-
accused Om Dhama was supposedly arrested by the police and on being
asked as to who else was involved in the occurrence along with him, he
has named Himanshu Rana, Nitish and 3-4 other youths. The name of the
applicant has not been disclosed by him. The name of the applicant
surfaces in the information received by the police from a police informer
and other than the said information, there appear to be some call detail
records which indicate that the applicant was in touch with the co-accused
Om Dhama. As per the call detail records, the locations of Om Dhama,
Naveen Rai (the applicant), Nitish Kumar and Himanshu Rana were
found to be at the same place i.e. M/s Ganesh Developers property
situated at Vasundhara, Sector-16-A, Ghaziabad. In the opinion of the
Court, merely due to the fact that the location of the applicant coincides
with that of the co-accused, cannot necessarily lead to a conclusion of the
applicant participating in the crime in question. The co-accused Om
Dhama, who has been arrested, has only disclosed the name of co-accused
Nitish and Himanshu Rana. In the opinion of the Court, the involvement
of the applicant may be on account of his being in contact with the co-
accused Om Dhama.

7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
NABAIL No. 9586 of 2026
3

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant-Naveen Rai, he shall be
released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on
furnishing a personal bond and surety 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;

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

11. 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 30, 2026
A. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…