Allahabad High Court

VINAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial, subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Vinay Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case (Crime No.604 of 2022) involving alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. He claimed innocence and argued that the police were attempting an unwarranted arrest, citing a prior interim bail order and the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the facts. The Court examined the principles governing anticipatory bail, emphasizing the nature of the offence, the accused’s role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing, referencing Sushila Aggarwal and Siddharth v. State. Finding that the applicant satisfied the criteria for bail, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions, including cooperation with investigation and restriction on leaving India.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in view of the nature of the alleged offences and his alleged role
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(2), 438, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

anticipatory bail
personal liberty
IPC offences
Section 420
Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Supreme Court precedent
bail conditions
investigation cooperation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9900 of 2026

Vinay Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Abrar Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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.604 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police
Station - Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, 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
him. Earlier, the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2023 in Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 5884 of 2023 till the
submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, an
identically situated co-accused, Mohd Nashid @ Mohd Nashit, has been
enlarged on anticipatory bail by another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 10.04.2023 till the conclusion of the trial. It is further submitted
that the applicant ought to have been enlarged on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of the trial in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his
credit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and
NABAIL No. 9900 of 2026
2

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 (supra), 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
officer to arrest the accused.

8. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail,
NABAIL No. 9900 of 2026
3

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- Vinay Kumar, involved in the
aforesaid case, he 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 concerned 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 her/him 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 29, 2026
Radhika

Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…