Allahabad High Court
DHARMENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Dharmendra, filed an anticipatory bail application in a case registered under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, fearing arrest. He contended that he had been falsely implicated, noting that the only base case against him already listed him on bail and that he had no prior convictions, though he had two other pending cases where he was also on bail. The State opposed the application but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court considered that the applicant was not a previous convict and that the only case against him already had bail, deeming these factors sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered that, if arrested, the applicant be released on personal bond and surety subject to conditions such as cooperation with police interrogation and no intimidation of witnesses. The Court also retained the power to cancel the bail if any condition is breached.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 of the CrPC (and Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities Act) given his lack of prior convictions and existing bail in the base case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities Act
- bail conditions
- non‑conviction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9678 of 2026
Dharmendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Yadav, Sandeep Kumar
Kushwaha, Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Shri Aditya Yadav, 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 Case Crime No.175 of 2026 under Section 3(1) of the U.P.
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Saifai, District Etawah, 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 submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. Only single base case has been
shown in the gang chart against the applicant and in the said case, the
applicant is on bail. The applicant has criminal history of two other cases,
in which also the applicant is on bail. The applicant has not been
convicted for any offence.
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, however, has been unable to dispute the submissions made by the
Learned counsel for the applicant.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
NABAIL No. 9678 of 2026
2
6. Taking into consideration the fact that only single base case has been
shown against the applicant in which the applicant is on bail, having
criminal history of two cases, in which also the applicant is on bail and
also the fact that applicant is not a previous convict, I deem it fit to
enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
8. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Dharmendra, 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;
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
10. 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
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…