Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

KAILASH CHAURASIAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The Court held that, given the applicant’s clean record and the absence of actual loss, anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC was appropriate.

Summary

The applicant, Kailash Chaurasia, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, fearing arrest in a case alleging forgery of appointment letters for a Class‑IV post in the District Legal Services Authority, Ghazipur. He contended that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and had not received any salary from the alleged appointment. The State opposed bail, asserting that forged letters had been discovered, but did not dispute the applicant’s clean record. The Court noted the absence of actual loss, the applicant’s lack of antecedents, and the interim protection already granted, and therefore ordered that anticipatory bail be granted with standard conditions. The order emphasized that the bail is limited to the application and does not constitute an opinion on the merits of the underlying case.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving alleged forgery of appointment letters.
  • Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and lack of actual loss justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
  • Whether the alleged offence of forging appointment letters is bailable in nature.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 482 CrPC
  • forgery
  • no criminal antecedents
  • bail conditions
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Indian criminal law

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9996 of 2026

Kailash Chaurasia
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :   Kamlesh Kumar Yadav
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.235 of 2026 under Sections 318(4), 319(2),
336(3), 338, 340 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghazipur,
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 submits that the applicant has been
falsely nominated in the present case. The FIR has been lodged against
the applicant, co-accused Abhay Kumar Yadav, some unknown
employees of the District Legal Services Authority, Ghazipur and one
person Arvind Kushwaha, who was the peon in the District Legal
Services Authority, Ghazipur. The allegation is of preparation of fake
appointment letters and trying to join as a Class-IV employee in the
District Legal Services Authority, Ghazipur. Learned counsel has stated
that the applicant has never forged any letter. The applicant had applied
for being appointed as a Class-IV employee in the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre under the District Judge, Ghazipur and no forged
letter has been produced by him. Learned counsel has further stated that
the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant had been granted
interim protection for a period of 60 days in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.12548 of 2026 vide order dated 15.06.2026 and liberty was granted to
                                                      NABAIL No. 9996 of 2026
                               2


the applicant to apply for regular bail / anticipatory bail, which was to be
considered as per the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in the
case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that
the applicant had attempted to obtain a job under the District Legal
Services Authority by forging an appointment letter. The said letters on
verification were found to be forged, which led to the lodging of the
F.I.R. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the fact that the applicant has no
criminal antecedents.

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

6. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant had been
granted interim protection of 60 days by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.12548 of 2026. The applicant is not stated to have received
any salary towards the appointment.

7. Taking into account the fact that no actual loss has been caused and
also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, 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-Kailash Chaurasia, 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
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 9996 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    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;

                                    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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.