Allahabad High Court

MUKESH PAL @ KALLUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Mukesh Pal @ Kallu, who was named in FIR No.65 of 2025 for alleged assault causing injuries to three persons, one of which was a temporal bone fracture. The applicant argued that he had no specific role, the injuries were not life‑threatening, and similarly situated co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed, contending that the applicant was a nominated accused with a specific role in the assault. Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the court examined the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents, and the risk of fleeing. Finding the applicant’s situation analogous to the co‑accused and noting the lack of serious injury to most victims, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The order emphasized that the bail was granted solely for the purpose of the application and not as a judgment on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC considering the nature and gravity of the alleged assault.
Whether the applicant’s alleged role and the seriousness of injuries justify denial of bail.
Whether the precedent of granting bail to similarly situated co‑accused influences the decision.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
assault
injury
false implication
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. - 9790 of 2026

Mukesh Pal @ Kallu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in Case Crime No. 65 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
126, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2), 110 of the B.N.S., Police Station- Shahpur,
District Muzaffar Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail
during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and seek anticipatory bail on the
following grounds:

i. The applicant has not been assigned any specific role;

ii. The only serious injury has been received by the injured Devendra, who
has received a fracture of his temporal bone. The other injuries received by
the three injured persons are of simple in nature.

iii. Eight persons have been attributed the role of assault in the First
Information Report and none of the injuries found on the injured have been
found to be dangerous for life.

iv. Co-accused Aashu Pal, Teenu Pal, Tushar Chandel and Ritik have been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2026 &
27.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail U/S 482 BNSS No.
NABAIL No. 9790 of 2026
2

1401 of 2026 & 1230 of 2026 respectively. The case of the applicant stand
on a similar footing.

v. The applicant has a criminal history of one other case in which he is on
bail and is not a previous convict.

4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has
stated that applicant is the nominated accused in the First Information Report
with specific role of assault on the injured being given to them. However, he
could not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that
similarly situated co-accused Aashu Pal, Teenu Pal, Tushar Chandel and
Ritik have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
18.02.2026 & 27.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail U/S
482 BNSS No. 1401 of 2026 & 1230 of 2026 respectively

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.

6. As per the FIR, eight accused persons including the applicant are said to
have assaulted the first informant side as a result of which, three persons are
said to have received injuries, however, none of the injuries have been found
to be dangerous to life except injured Devendra who has received fracture of
his temporal bone.

7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State
of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature
and gravity of accusation, antecedents of accused, possibility of accused to
flee from justice and that Court must also evaluate the entire available
material against the accused carefully and the exact role of the accused has
also to be taken into consideration.

8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as settled
principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, the nature of allegation and the
role of the applicant and also the fact that similarly situated co-accused have
been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, I deem it appropriate to enlarge
the applicant on anticipatory bail.

9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is
allowed.
NABAIL No. 9790 of 2026
3

10. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Mukesh Pal @ Kallu, 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;

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.

September 28, 2026
Junaid
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…