Allowed¶17

Dinesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2026NABAIL/1047/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; Sections 60/63/72 Excise Act; Case Crime No. 703 of 2025; P.S. Loni Border, District Ghaziabad; Haryana-manufactured liquor stored/sold in Uttar Pradesh; name surfaced in confession of co-accused Himanshu Kumar and Shivam; personal bond Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties; interim bail till 12.3.2026 with conditions; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 relied on; AGA to obtain instructions; listed fresh 12.3.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted to applicant Dinesh till 12.3.2026 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to stated conditions; matter listed fresh on 12.3.2026 at 2pm; learned AGA may obtain instructions in the meantime. ¶17

Dinesh vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Dinesh should be granted anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 703 of 2025 under Sections 60/63/72 Excise Act, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad.

¶11

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court released applicant Dinesh on interim anticipatory bail till 12.3.2026 on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial Court; no inducement, threat or promise to witnesses; cooperation during trial and no misuse of liberty; no leaving India without prior permission). In default of any condition, the prosecution is at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of the interim anticipatory bail. The case was listed fresh on 12.3.2026 at 2pm, with liberty to the learned AGA to obtain instructions in the meantime.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.), February 4, 2026 — Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 1047 of 2026, Dinesh v. State of U.P. and Another. The applicant, whose name had surfaced in the confessional statements of arrested co-accused in Case Crime No. 703 of 2025 under Sections 60/63/72 Excise Act, P.S. Loni Border, District Ghaziabad (alleged storage and sale in U.P. of liquor manufactured in Haryana), sought anticipatory bail. Relying on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 (nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents, possibility of flight, evaluation of material and exact role of the accused), and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court granted interim anticipatory bail till 12.3.2026 on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, imposing conditions against tampering with evidence, inducement of witnesses, misuse of liberty and leaving India without permission; default entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation. The learned AGA was directed to obtain instructions and the case was listed fresh on 12.3.2026 at 2pm.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1047 of 2026

Dinesh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ashish Tyagi, Kapil Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 72

¶9

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶10

1. Heard Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 703 of 2025, under Sections 60/63/72 Excise Act, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that he has not received any instructions as yet.

¶13

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of arrested co-accused Himanshu Kumar and Shivam. It is submitted that as per FIR, liquor manufactured in the State of Haryana and meant for supply in the said State has been found to be stored and sold in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶14

5. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶15

NABAIL No. 1047 of 2026

¶16

¶17

6. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant- Dinesh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim anticipatory 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 till 12.3.2026 with the following conditions :-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶19

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

(iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of interim interim anticipatory bail bail.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶22

7. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein.

¶23

8. List this case as fresh on 12.3.2026 at 2pm.

¶24

9. In the meantime, learned AGA may obtain instructions in the matter.

¶25

February 4, 2026 Abhishek

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

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

Dinesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Rosval vs State of U.P.

Smt Anju Pandey vs State of U.P.

Sajid Husain vs State of U.P.

Arbind Rajbhar vs State of U.P.