Saroj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

Saroj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS should be granted to the applicant (Saroj Kumar) in Case Crime no.1092 of 2025, Sections 109(1) and 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Unnao.

Court's answer

Positive identification of the applicant rests only on the statement of the complainant, and no CCTV footage of the incident could be recovered despite the F.I.R.'s assertion that the incident was captured on camera.

Ratio / Principle

While identification rests on the complainant alone, the incident itself appears corroborated by a nurse of the hospital, and the police recovered a bullet-shell from the place of incident as indicated.

Key takeaways

The applicant is absconding and is not cooperating in the investigation.ratio¶18
On the facts and circumstances, this Court found no good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Mathur, J. — Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 623 of 2026 (NABAIL No. 623 of 2026) filed by Saroj Kumar concerning Case Crime no.1092 of 2025, Sections 109(1) and 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Unnao, arising out of an F.I.R. alleging firing at the complainant outside Rajput Hospital on 28.12.2025 — Application rejected on May 4, 2026. The Court observed that positive identification of the applicant rested only on the statement of the complainant and that no CCTV footage of the incident could be recovered, although the incident stood corroborated by a nurse of the hospital (eye-witness Nidhi Savita) and the police had recovered a .315 bullet shell from the place of incident indicated in the F.I.R.; the applicant was further noted to be absconding and not cooperating in the investigation. Counsel for the applicant had urged false implication on account of political rivalry and a counterblast F.I.R., pointing to the applicant's own F.I.R. of 22.12.2025 (registered as Case Crime No.1072 of 2025) and rivalry for the post of Member of Village Panchayat; the learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the application, also adverting to the statement of Tinku Verma regarding forcible taking of his vehicle by the applicant on 10.10.2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 623 of 2026

Saroj Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another	Deptt.	Of .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Srees Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

Court No. - 12

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Vasishta Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1.

In view of order being passed notices to opposite party no.2 stands dispensed with.

First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.1092 of 2025 under Sections 109(1), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Unnao.

As per contents of F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place on 28.12.2025 outside Rajput Hospital when the complainant was allegedly fired upon by applicant who was travelling in a vehicle. It is stated that the complainant was saved only because he was able to duck in time. It is also stated that the entire incident has been captured in CCTV footage.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him on account of political rivalry since he had lodged F.I.R. against the said complainant on 22.12.2025 which was registered as Case Crime No.1072 of 2025. It is submitted that the present F.I.R. has been

NABAIL No. 623 of 2026

2

lodged as a counterblast only due to rivalry for the post as Member of Village Panchayat. It is submitted that previous criminal history of two cases have already been explained.

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the anticipatory bail application with submission that although there was no CCTV footage obtained with regard to the incident but upon receipt of such information, police party went to the said hospital and was able to recover .315 bullet shell from the place indicated in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the said incident has also been corroborated by eye witness Nidhi Savita who is a nurse in the hospital. He has also adverted to statement of one Tinku Verma who has stated that on 10.10.2025, the applicant had forcibly taken away his vehicle about which information had been given to police station concerned but without any consequent action. It is also submitted that the applicant is absconding and is not cooperating in investigation.

Considering the submissions advanced and upon perusal of material on record, it appears that positive identification of applicant is only on the basis of statement of complainant and no CCTV footage of the incident could be recovered. Nonetheless, the incident itself appears to be corroborated by nurse of the hospital. The police has also recovered a bullet-shell from the place of incident as indicated herein above. The applicant is absconding and is not cooperating in the investigation

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to applicant.

The Anticipatory Bail Application therefore stands rejected.

(Manish Mathur,J.)

May 4, 2026 kvg/-

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench