Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD KHALIDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC must be granted as the applicant appears to be a victim, has no criminal antecedents, and false implication cannot be ruled out.
Summary
The applicant, Mohammad Khalid, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case where an FIR alleged his involvement in a violent incident, though he claimed to be a victim and sustained injuries. The FIR named eight accused and several unknown persons, but did not assign a specific role to Khalid. The applicant had no prior criminal record and argued that his implication was false. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the non‑grievous nature of the injuries. Considering the possibility of false implication, the applicant’s victim status, and lack of antecedents, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions and the right to cancel if breached.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person named in an FIR who claims to be a victim and has no criminal antecedents.
- Whether the possibility of false implication warrants the grant of bail under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the nature of injuries (non‑grievous) influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- victim status
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9773 of 2026
Mohammad Khalid
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Wahid Jamal
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. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the prayer
clause during the course of day.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 0568 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1) of BNS and Section 7 of Criminal Law
Amendment Act, Police Station- Kwarsi, District Aligarh, with a prayer
to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest
in the abovementioned case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the FIR has been
lodged by one Sub Inspector of Police regarding an incident in which two
groups indulged in violence. The police has lodged an FIR against eight
named accused and five to seven unknown persons. During investigation,
it was found that seven persons had sustained injuries in the incident
including the applicant, but none of the injuries was found to be grievous
in nature or dangerous to life. The Learned counsel for the applicant has
further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated only on
the ground that he is one of the injured persons, without ascertaining
whether the applicant was a victim or a perpetrator of the incident. The
applicant has no criminal antecedents.
NABAIL No. 9773 of 2026
2
5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not
dispute the fact that none of the injuries has been opined to be grievous in
nature or dangerous to life.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
7. The applicant, although named in the FIR, has not been assigned any
specific role. He claims to be a victim himself, having sustained injuries
in the occurrence. Prima facie, from the averments made in the FIR and
the number of accused persons nominated therein, false implication of the
applicant cannot be ruled out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
10. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Mohammad Khalid, 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;
NABAIL No. 9773 of 2026
3
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
12. 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 28, 2026
Junaid
Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…