Allahabad High Court
SHANI KUMAR SAROJ @ RITIKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Summary
The applicant, Shani Kumar Saroj, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He claimed that he was falsely implicated in four base cases from 2024 and that he has no prior criminal record, being on bail in all the base cases. The State opposed the relief but did not dispute the similarity of the applicant’s situation to a co‑accused who had earlier been granted anticipatory bail. The Court examined the gang chart, noted the absence of any post‑2024 offences, and concluded that the applicant is unlikely to repeat the alleged crime or tamper with evidence. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions and the power to cancel it on breach.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC despite multiple pending base cases.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of influencing witnesses, fleeing the jurisdiction, or repeating the alleged offence.
- Whether the applicant’s situation is analogous to that of a co‑accused who was previously granted anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- U.P. Gangsters Act
- false nomination
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9990 of 2026
Shani Kumar Saroj @ Ritik
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Shrivastava, Vishvanath Prasad
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.178 of 2026, under Section 2/3 U.P.
Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, at Police
Station- Nawabganj, District- Prayagraj, with a prayer to enlarge him on
anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the
abovementioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has
been falsely nominated in the present case on the basis of four base cases
mentioned in the gang chart. He contends that all the four cases relate to
the year 2024 and have been simultaneously slapped upon the applicant.
The applicant has no other criminal antecedents and in the base cases the
applicant is on bail. Similarly situated co-accused Abhi Pasi @ Bachcha
Pasi @ Abhinav Saroj has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in
NABAIL No.6474 of 2026 and the case of the applicant stands on a
similar footing to that of the co-accused.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but does
not dispute the fact that the case of the applicant stands on a similar
footing to that of the co-accused. Learned AGA has pointed out that the
applicant has four base cases to his credit whereas the co-accused had
NABAIL No. 9990 of 2026
2
only three base cases.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
6. Prima facie from the perusal of the gang chart it appears that of the four
cases registered against the applicant, all have been registered in the
month of August and September 2024. The applicant is not shown to be
the gang leader. Similarly situated co-accused Abhi Pasi @ Bachcha Pasi
@ Abhinav Saroj has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. In the
prima facie opinion of this Court, taking into account the fact that after
2024 there is no other criminal case that has been registered against the
applicant, there is least likelihood of the applicant repeating the crime in
the near future. Even otherwise, the applicant is on bail in all the base
cases and he has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
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-Shani Kumar Saroj @ Ritik
, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory
bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety 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;
NABAIL No. 9990 of 2026
3
iv. that the applicant 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.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 24, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…