Allahabad High Court

AMARNATHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail, holding that the allegations appear to be false and there is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the alleged offence.

Summary

The applicant, Amarnath, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case (Crime No.110 of 2026) where he was named in an FIR for offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 131 and 351(2) of the IPC. He contended that the FIR was based on a fabricated assault claim arising from a road traffic accident and that medical reports were contradictory, showing no grievous injury at the time of the first examination. The court noted that co‑accused family members had already been granted anticipatory bail in similar circumstances and that the applicant had a minimal criminal antecedent. Considering the lack of clear evidence linking the applicant to the alleged injuries, the possibility of false implication, and the absence of any likelihood of the applicant repeating the alleged offence, the court decided to grant anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The order emphasized that the bail was granted without any opinion on the merits of the case and that breach of conditions could lead to cancellation.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite the FIR alleging offences under the IPC.
Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement can be considered a false implication based on contradictory medical evidence.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing the jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 131, 351(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
medical evidence
property dispute
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
Section 438 CrPC
Section 482 CrPC

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9664 of 2026

Amarnath
.....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. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and the Learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.110 of 2026, under Sections 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.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that although the
applicant is named in the First Information Report (FIR), however, his
implication is absolutely false. Injured had received injuries in a road
traffic accident, but a false case of assault was manufactured and FIR was
lodged on the next day.

4. 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, who is the
father of the applicant, and co-accused Rishabh, who is the son of the
applicant, have all been implicated due to previous enmity and they have
been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL Nos.9379 of
2026 and 9573 of 2026 respectively. The case of the applicant stands on a
NABAIL No. 9664 of 2026
2

similar footing. The applicant has a criminal history of one other case,
which has been lodged post implication of the applicant in the present
case.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the
fact that the case of the applicant stands on a similar footing to that of the
co-accused.

6. I have considered the submissions made by Learned counsel for the
parties.

7. The applicant has correctly explained his criminal antecedents and in
the prima facie opinion of the Court, there is no likelihood of the
applicant repeating any such crime in the near future. There appears to be
a property dispute between the family of the applicant and the injured.
The applicant’s father and son have both been arrayed as an accused in
the present case.

8. 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.

9. 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 facts and circumstances, as discussed
above, the false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Similarly
situated co-accused Rishipal and Rishabh have been granted anticipatory
bail by this Court.

10. 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
enlarge the applicant 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 - Amarnath, he shall be
NABAIL No. 9664 of 2026
3

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;

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

14. 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 17, 2026
Kushal

Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…