Allahabad High Court
AADIL CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court held that, given the applicant was not named in the FIR, had no criminal antecedents, and the case against him was distinct from the co-accused, anticipatory bail was warranted.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Aadil Chaudhary in a case involving alleged offences under sections of the BNS and the Passports Act, 1967. The applicant argued he was falsely implicated, noting that his name only appeared in the co-accused Wahab Pradhan's confessional statement and that he had no criminal antecedents. The State did not dispute the lack of antecedents but opposed bail. The court observed that the applicant was not named in the FIR, was not a beneficiary of the forged passport, and that the co-accused's bail had been withdrawn without merit-based dismissal, placing the applicant’s situation on a separate footing. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions and retained the power to cancel it on breach.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant is not named in the FIR but is mentioned in a co-accused's confessional statement.
- Whether the alleged involvement in passport offences under the Passports Act, 1967, justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the applicant's clean criminal record and the distinct nature of his alleged involvement warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Passports Act, 1967 — s. 12(1), 6(1)(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- passport fraud
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
- CrPC Section 482
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9769 of 2026
Aadil Chaudhary
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant 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. 377 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS and Section 6(1)(a) and 12(1) of The
Passports Act, 1967, Police Station- Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, with a
prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his
arrest in the abovementioned case.
3. The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was lodged
against the applicant co-accused Wahab Pradhan, who has been granted
regular bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Meerut. The
name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-
accused Wahab Pradhan. The applicant is not the beneficiary of the
alleged forged passport. Applicant has no criminal antecedents.
4. The Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail,
but does not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal
antecedents.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
NABAIL No. 9769 of 2026
2
6. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name surfaced in the
confessional statement of the co-accused Wahab Pradhan. The co-accused
Wahab Pradhan has been granted regular bail by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 12, Meerut. The anticipatory bail application of the co-
accused Wahab Pradhan was withdrawn before this Court and was not
dismissed on merits. The case of applicant stands on a separate footing.
The applicant is not stated to be a beneficiary of the passport in question,
which was issued in the name of Wahab Pradhan.
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.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Aadil Chaudhary, he shall be
released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on
furnishing a personal bond and surety 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;
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
NABAIL No. 9769 of 2026
3
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 28, 2026
Junaid
Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…