Dismissed¶15

Indresh Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 May 2026NABAIL/2998/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Jai Prakash Tiwari, J., May 6, 2026) rejects anticipatory bail application under S. 482 BNSS in Case Crime No. 0344/2025, P.S. Panki, Kanpur Nagar, involving BNS Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 308(7), 111(2)(b), 316(3), 318(4), 61(2)(a); grounds: specific allegations in FIR and four similar criminal cases against applicant; no monetary quantum; no precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

Bare perusal of the first information report shows that the allegations are specific against the applicant. ¶14

Indresh Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2998 of 2026

¶3

Indresh Singh Chauhan

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Padmaker Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 70

¶7

HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶9

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0344/2025 under Sections - 115(2), 352, 351(3), 308(7), 111(2)(b), 316(3), 318(4), 61(2)(a) BNS, Police Station - Panki District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Submission has been made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has no concern with the offence alleged against him. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence has been committed by the applicant. It has further been submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR. It has also been submitted that no specific allegation has been made by the informant against the applicant in the FIR. The applicant has criminal history of four cases, which have been explained in the present application. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, there is no possibility of misusing the liberty of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has contended that the accusation levelled against the applicant is specific.

¶12

NABAIL No. 2998 of 2026

¶13

¶14

Insofar as the allegations are concerned, the same is very much apparent on record. In this case, bare perusal of the first information report itself shows that the allegations are specific against the applicant. It is also apparent that the applicant has four criminal history of similar nature. No good ground is made out for anticipatory bail. In case the applicant has any grievance, he may avail remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶15

Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶16

It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶17

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)

¶18

May 6, 2026 S.K.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indresh Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indresh Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajnish Singh @ Sahil Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Pal Alias Ravindra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Lekhraj Amarnani vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Anshu Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P.