PRASHANT SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9779 of 2026

Prashant Sharma
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                   :   Arfi, Ram Jatan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A.

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

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

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No.368 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 191(3),
115(2), 352, 351(3), 125, 121(1), 132 BNS and Section 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh, with a prayer
to grant him anticipatory bail.

3. 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. The FIR was lodged by the police officer-
Shri Virendra Kumar against the applicant and 5 other co-accused;
general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant
in the FIR; no one has received any injury in the said case, however, it is
alleged that the accused persons named in the FIR were trying to cause
death. It is further contended that identically situated co-accused Saurabh
Chauhan and X (Minor) were granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate
bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.09.2026 and 16.09.2026, passed
in NABAIL NO.9325 of 2026 and NABAIL No.9305 of 2026
respectively. Criminal history of one other case of the applicant has been
explained in paragraph no.18 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during
                                                       NABAIL No. 9779 of 2026
                                2


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.

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

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

6. 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.

7. 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
accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 9779 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    officer to arrest the accused.

                                    8. 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.

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

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

                                    10. 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 21, 2026
                                    Nitendra




Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad