Allowed¶14

Anjish Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 May 2026BAIL/16044/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC — bail allowed — Anjish Kumar v. State of U.P. — CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16044 of 2026 — S. 483 BNSS 2023 — Case Crime No. 82 of 2024, P.S. Civil Lines, Dist. Etawah — SS. 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC, SS. 66C/66D IT Act — parity with four co-accused already granted bail — no criminal history — personal bond Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties — conditions incl. S. 351 BNSS presence — Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J. — May 12, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Anjish Kumar on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the stated conditions. ¶14

Anjish Kumar vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Anjish Kumar on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the stated conditions.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Anjish Kumar should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2024 (Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC; Sections 66C, 66D IT Act), P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from the record, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court found it to be a fit case for bail.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Parity: four co-accused (Vipin Kumar, Vikul Chaudhary, Rajnesh, Deepak Kumar Verma) had been granted bail by this Court and the role of the applicant was not distinguishable from theirs.

¶13

Key takeaways

The applicant has no criminal history.ratio¶13
Applicant Anjish Kumar to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.ratio¶15
Release made subject to conditions (no inducement/threat/promise or tampering with evidence, no pressurising prosecution witnesses, personal presence at opening of case/framing of charge/recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, no adjournment when witnesses present, presence on each date); breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.; order dated May 12, 2026). Applicant Anjish Kumar, in jail since 3.8.2025 in Case Crime No. 82 of 2024 (Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC; Sections 66C, 66D IT Act), P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah, granted bail on parity — four co-accused (Vipin Kumar, Vikul Chaudhary, Rajnesh, Deepak Kumar Verma) already enlarged and the applicant's role held not distinguishable — coupled with absence of criminal history. Release directed on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions including presence under Section 351 BNSS; breach to be a ground for cancellation. Observations expressly confined to the bail determination, with no expression on merits and the trial court left free to reach independent conclusions.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16044 of 2026

¶3

Anjish Kumar

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Lavkush Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 69

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Lavkush Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2024, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 66C, 66D of IT Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Etawah, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 3.8.2025. It is further submitted that co-accused Vipin Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court whereas another co-accused Vikul Chaudhary, Rajnesh and Deepak Kumar Verma have also been granted bail by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court. It is further submitted that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transaction. It is further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

BAIL No. 16044 of 2026

¶11

¶12

4 . On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶13

5 . Four accused persons namely, Vipin Kumar Vikul Chaudhary, Rajnesh and Deepak Kumar Verma have also been granted bail by this Court and the role of the applicant is not distinguishable from the role of above co-accused. The applicant is having no criminal history and as per FIR some fraud is said to have been committed by Rajnesh Kumar holder of account number and holder of mobile no. 7217513583 and some unknown official of the department and during investigation it has been found that account number of the applicant is said to have been found involved in the alleged offence.

¶14

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED .

¶15

7 . Let the applicant- Anjish Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(i) 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall

¶20

BAIL No. 16044 of 2026

¶21

¶22

not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶24

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

May 12, 2026 Abhishek

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anjish Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjish Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kharwar Vs State of U.P.

Bablu and Another vs State of U.P.

Mohd Fardeen vs State of U.P.

Khalik vs State of U.P.