Allahabad High Court

BYAS MUNI GIRI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail to the applicants subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Byas Muni Giri and two others in a criminal case involving alleged assault under several sections of the B.N.S. Act. The applicants claimed false implication, lack of serious injury, and no prior criminal record, while the informant argued that the offences did not attract a punishment exceeding seven years and that the applicants had not shown genuine apprehension of arrest. The Court noted cross‑versions of injuries, the session‑triable nature of Section 110, and the absence of any coercive process or warrant against the applicants. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and observing that the charge sheet had been filed, the Court found no need for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions and the power to cancel it upon breach.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving a session‑triable offence under Section 110 of the B.N.S. Act.
Whether the applicants have a genuine apprehension of arrest justifying anticipatory bail.
Whether the nature of the alleged offences and the maximum punishment affect the grant of bail.
Whether any coercive measures or warrants have been issued against the applicants.
How the Supreme Court precedent Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI applies to the present bail application.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 110, 115(2), 191(2), 324(4), 333, 351(3), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
session case
B.N.S. Act
criminal procedure
false implication
cross versions
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9868 of 2026

Byas Muni Giri And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Prabodh Dubey, Ashok Kumar
Giri, Manvendra Kumar Yadav,
Reenika Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nainshi Srivastava, Narendra
Nath Tripathi

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

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Narendra Nath
Tripathi and Ms. Nainshi Srivastava, Learned counsel for the informant
and the 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
applicants in Case Crime No. 572 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 191(2),
352, 110, 351(3), 324(4), 333 of B.N.S., Police Station- Ramkola, District
Kushinagar, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the
applicants apprehend 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 FIR has been lodged
against 11 named accused who all belong to the same family. The
allegation is of assaulting five persons. None of the injured have received
any injury which may be considered to be grievous in nature or dangerous
to life. The Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that
there are cross versions and four persons from the side of the applicants
have also sustained injuries. The Learned counsel for the applicants has
further contended that one of the named accused, Shambhu Giri has been
granted regular bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
24530 of 2026. Applicants have no criminal antecedents.
NABAIL No. 9868 of 2026
2

4. The Learned counsel for the informant and the Learned AGA have
opposed the prayer for bail and have contended that while considering the
anticipatory bail application of the co-accused Laxmi Narayan Giri and
others, this Court directed that the bail application of the applicants may
be considered in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773. The Learned counsel for the informant has
also contended that the applicants have no apprehension of arrest and in
the event of conviction, the offences do not entail a punishment of more
than seven years. The Learned counsel for the informant has further
contended that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on
4.8.2025, but no satisfactory explanation of approaching the Court with a
delay has been given.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.

6. There are cross versions. Both the sides claim injuries. Although the
offences in question, in the event of a conviction, do not entail
punishment of more than seven years, however, Section 110 of the BNS is
a Session triable offence. The application of the co-accused Laxmi
Naryan Giri and two others being NABAIL No. 9953 of 2026 was not
dismissed on merits, but was permitted to be withdrawn. One of the co-
accused, Shambhu Giri, has been granted regular bail by this Court.

7. On a pointed query made to the learned counsel for the informant
whether any coercive method or warrants to secure the presence of the
applicants has been issued by the concerned Magistrate, the learned
counsel for the informant and the learned AGA have not been able to
point out the issuance of any coercive process or warrants to compel the
appearance of the applicants.

8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also
the fact that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and after filing of
a charge sheet, they are no longer required for any custodial interrogation
or recoveries, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on
anticipatory bail.
NABAIL No. 9868 of 2026
3

9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants
is allowed.

10. In the event of the arrest of the applicants- Byas Muni Giri, Kaushal
Giri and Naveen Giri, they shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid
case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing of 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;

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 29, 2026
Junaid

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…