Allahabad High Court

UVAISversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as the applicant is unlikely to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or flee, and personal liberty outweighs the need for arrest at this stage.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Uvais, who was implicated in a case under Sections 64(2), 351(2) and 351(3) of the B.N.S. for alleged misconduct with a 19‑year‑old woman who had previously been married and divorced. The applicant asserted that the relationship was consensual, that the FIR was lodged after an unreasonable delay, and that he had no criminal record or involvement in any obscene conduct. The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Relying on the principles laid down in *Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)* and *Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, the Court examined factors such as the nature of the offence, the applicant’s role, the risk of tampering with evidence, and the importance of personal liberty. Finding that the applicant was likely to cooperate with the investigation and that there was no clear risk of absconding or witness intimidation, the Court concluded that a case for anticipatory bail existed. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions restricting the applicant’s conduct and travel abroad.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the CrPC in view of the nature of the alleged offence and the facts of the case.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding from justice.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 351(2), 351(3), 64(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
personal liberty
Section 482 CrPC
false implication
witness tampering
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9713 of 2026

Uvais
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Vijay Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

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

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No. 777 of 2026, under Sections 64(2), 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S.,
Police Station - Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, with a prayer to grant him
anticipatory bail.

4. 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
the applicant. It is further submitted that the victim is a major girl about 19
years of age. She was in love with the applicant but her family members
were against this relationship and that her marriage was solemnized with one
Imran, however, after some time, the divorce took place between the victim
and her husband. It is further submitted that the victim alleged that after her
divorce the applicant refused to marry her. The victim refused to get herself
medically examined. It is further submitted that the victim is a major girl and
she was in a consensual relationship with the applicant. The delay in lodging
the F.I.R. has not been satisfactorily explained by the informant. No obscene
photographs of the victim were ever clicked or uploaded by the applicant.
NABAIL No. 9713 of 2026
2

The applicant has no criminal history. 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.

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

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

7. 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 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.

8. 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
NABAIL No. 9713 of 2026
3

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.

9. 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.

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Uvais involved in aforesaid case
shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on his/her
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 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.

11. 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
A.P. Pandey

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…