Anil Gaur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3772 of 2026

Anil Gaur And 2 Others	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rahul Yadav, Ravindra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 71

¶5

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶6

Sri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants hands up the supplementary affidavit annexing the criminal history of applicant nos.1 & 2. The same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0126 of 2026, under Sections 190, 191(2), 352, 115(2), 109(1) BNS and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.- Hathras Gate, District- Hathras.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that the police has lodged the F.I.R. on 30.03.2026 against 16 named and 20-25 unnamed persons for the clash between them. It is alleged that the two factions of the village have entered into stone pelting on each other. The police has arrived at the incident, wherein they have suffered injuries. The name of the accused-applicant is there in the F.I.R. The applicant no.1 has two cases of criminal history. In both the cases, he is on bail. One is matrimonial dispute. The applicant no.2 has three cases of criminal history and in all the cases, the final report is submitted. The applicant no.3 has no criminal history. The accused-applicant though named in the F.I.R., but have no role. None of the persons in the two factions of the village suffered injuries. The applicants want to cooperate in the

¶10

NABAIL No. 3772 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

investigation, but apprehending arrest and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶14

The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 , wherein it is consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

¶15

This Court while considering the role of accused-applicant in the cross fight and further considering the gravity of accusation, explained criminal history and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

¶16

The applicants- Anil Gaur, Neeraj Sharma & Vishal @ Suryakant Verma involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions :-

¶17

(i) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution

¶19

NABAIL No. 3772 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

witnesses.

¶22

(iii) The applicants 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 BNSS.

¶23

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she/they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

11. The below mentioned directions shall be complied with for expeditious disposal of trial; in case charge sheet is submitted against accused/applicants.

¶28

11.1 As the investigation is continuing, in the event charge sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken, it would be the duty of the accused/applicants to appear before the trial court or Magistrate concerned as the case may be without waiting for the issuance of summons, within 60 days from the date of cognizance or on the date fixed, which ever is earlier. So that the trial may not be delayed for non execution of summons or processes.

¶29

11.2 The District Judge concerned shall direct each Magistrate and Special courts to maintain a register of Anticipatory Bail orders granted by this Court, wherein the details of Anticipatory Bail shall be entered. The dedicated official shall be nominated in each Special court and Magistrate court for maintaining the register.

¶30

NABAIL No. 3772 of 2026

¶31

4

¶32

11.3 The accused/applicants shall provide a copy of the final order of anticipatory bail within 30 days, to the official concerned in whose jurisdiction the case lies and shall provide his complete contact details including the mobile number and E-mail ID (if maintained); any change in detail shall be informed by the applicants.

¶33

11.4 On the submission of charge sheet and cognizance taken, the Presiding Officer shall fetch the details of the accused/applicants and the dedicated official shall inform the accused at the given detail.

¶34

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶35

May 5, 2026 Shivangi

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Gaur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Gaur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sahjad Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Lko. and Another

Suresh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Chhatrpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mahaveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ompal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Dubey Vs State of U.P.