Tanveer @ Sebu vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

Tanveer @ Sebu vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted; in the event of arrest the applicant is to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned, subject to conditions of reporting to the investigating officer within ten days, cooperation in investigation, non-influence of witnesses, presence when called for investigation/interrogation, and no departure from India without previous permission of the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Tanveer @ Sebu, apprehending arrest in Case Crime No. 415 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 119(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) BNS, Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

Court's answer

Considering that the applicant is not named in the FIR, the injured persons sustained simple injuries, the undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, and the anticipatory bail already granted to co-accused Aslam, and in light of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail subject to his continued cooperation in the investigation.

Ratio / Principle

The anticipatory bail is made subject to conditions: the applicant shall report to the investigating officer within ten days, cooperate in the investigation, not influence witnesses, remain present as and when called by the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. for investigation/interrogation, and shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - Section 482 BNSS - granted - applicant, a teacher, not named in the FIR in Case Crime No. 415 of 2025 (Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 119(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) BNS), P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh - injured persons sustained simple injuries - neither complainant nor injured alleged applicant's complicity - applicant undertook to continue cooperating with investigation - parity with co-accused Aslam, already granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.01.2026 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 85 of 2026 - reliance placed on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 - bail subject to conditions: report to investigating officer within ten days, cooperation, no influencing of witnesses, presence when called, no leaving India without prior permission of the Court.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 267 of 2026

Tanveer @ Sebu

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Javed Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 15

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 415 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 119(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) BNS, Police Station Raniganj District Pratapgarh.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a teacher and has not been named in the FIR. He further submits that the alleged injured person, namely Raj Kumar, has sustained only simple injuries. Neither the complainant nor the injured has alleged the complicity of the applicant.

It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the Investigating Officer and he is not involved in the alleged offence. He next submits that the applicant has a criminal history of one case which has been explained in para 11 of the bail application.

It is also submitted that the applicant has cooperated during the course of investigation and further undertakes to continue cooperating in the investigation. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Aslam, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 85 of 2026. The applicant, therefore, claims parity with the order passed in favour of the said

NABAIL No. 267 of 2026

2

co-accused.

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

On due consideration of the facts that applicant is not named in the F.I.R; the fact that simple injuries have been sustained by the injured persons and in view of the undertaking given on his behalf to cooperate with the investigation so also the bail order of the co-accused, named above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his continued cooperation in the investigation.

The application is allowed.

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case, on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within ten days from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

March 11, 2026 Vinay/-

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench