Tushar Chandel and Another Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1230 of 2026

Tushar Chandel And Another .....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mukesh Kumar, Nikil Pathak

¶4

Court No. - 71

¶5

HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Nikil Pathak, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.65 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2), 110 of the B.N.S., Police StationShahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and seek anticipatory bail on the following grounds:

¶9

i. The applicants have not been assigned any specific role;

¶10

ii. The only serious injury has been received by the injured Devendra, who has received a fracture of his temporal bone. The other injuries received by the three injured persons are of simple in nature.

¶11

iii. Eight persons have been attributed the role of assault in the First Information Report and none of the injuries found on the injured have been found to be dangerous for life.

¶12

iv. Co-accused Aashu Pal and Teenu Pal have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail U/S 482 BNSS No. 1401 of 2026. The case of the

¶13

NABAIL No. 1230 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

applicants stand on a similar footing.

¶16

v. The applicants have no criminal antecedents.

¶17

Sri Nikil Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has stated that applicants are the nominated accused in the First Information Report with specific role of assault on the injured being given to them. However, he could not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that similarly situated co-accused Aashu Pal and Teenu Pal have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 18.02.2026.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has also adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the informant. He has also been unable to dispute the claim of the applicants that they have no criminal antecedents.

¶19

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

As per the FIR, eight accused persons including the applicant are said to have assaulted the first informant side as a result of which, three persons are said to have received injuries, however, none of the injuries have been found to be dangerous to life except injured Devendra who has received fracture of his temporal bone.

¶21

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, antecedents of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must also evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶22

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, the nature of allegation and the role of the applicants and also the fact that similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.

¶23

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed .

¶24

NABAIL No. 1230 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

In the event of the arrest of the applicants- Tushar Chandel and Ritik involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶27

i. the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶28

ii. that the applicants 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;

¶29

iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

¶30

iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶31

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶32

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.

¶33

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

¶34

February 27, 2026

¶35

Kirti

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tushar Chandel and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Chandel and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerendra Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ajit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotelal Patel vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ashfaq Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Singh @ Bhola vs State of U.P. and Another