ANIT KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

 CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
                  BNSS No. - 9842 of 2026

Anit Kumar And Another
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Ajay Kumar Mishra
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. 266 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
190, 109, 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Amroha Dehat,
District Amroha, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the
applicant apprehends their arrest in the abovementioned case.

3. The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicants
have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants were not
named in the FIR. Their names surfaced in the confessional statement of the
co-accused Himanshu and Vikas. The similarly situated co-accused
Deepanshu has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL
No.10022 of 2026. The case of applicants stands on a similar footing.
Applicant no.1 has criminal history two other cases and in one case, final
report has been submitted while in the other case, the applicant has been
acquitted. Applicant no.2 has criminal history of one other case in which he
has not been charge sheeted.

4. The Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail,
but does not dispute the explanation given by the learned counsel for the
applicant with respect to their criminal antecedents.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the
parties.
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 9842 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    6. This appears to be a case involving no injury. The incident in question is
                                    stated to have arisen out of a dispute between two groups, which led to the
                                    lodging of the FIR, wherein the other group was already present. The
                                    applicants were not named in the FIR. The similarly situated co-accused
                                    Himanshu has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

                                    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- Anit Kumar and Vinayak, they
                                    shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on
                                    furnishing their 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police
                                    officer as and when required;

                                    ii. that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
                                    officer;

                                    iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission
                                    of the Court;

                                    iv. that the applicants 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 for
                                    deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered
                                    to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Junaid
                                                                                        (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)




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