HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9404 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.274 of 2026, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Shahganj, District Agra, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest him. There is no mens rea on the part of the applicant to commit the alleged offence. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 13.06.2026, whereas the FIR was lodged after two days on 15.06.2026, without any satisfactory explanation. The applicant and co-accused Vijay Singh were nominated in the FIR dated 15.06.2026. It is next submitted that co-accused Vijay Singh has been enlarged on regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30346 of 2026. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the wife of the informant sustained injuries and died on 13.06.2026 at about 17:51 hours due to fall of a boundary wall. However, as per the inquest report, the information regarding her death was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Naresh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) furnished to the concerned police station by her son only on 15.06.2026 at about 13:00 hours. The time of the alleged incident finds no mention either in the first information report or in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that the inquest proceedings were conducted on 15.06.2026, prior to lodging of the first information report, and the informant himself was one of the witnesses to the inquest proceedings, yet the inquest report finds no reference of the alleged incident or any allegation against the applicant. The first information report was thereafter lodged at 17:15 hours on 15.06.2026 implicating the applicant. It is next submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence and no information was furnished to the police prior to 15.06.2026 regarding the alleged disappearance of the deceased. The applicant being neighbour of the informant has been falsely implicated due to prior enmity. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 5. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record. 6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating NABAIL No. 9404 of 2026 2 witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. 8. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Naresh, involved in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned or the court concerned. (ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer NABAIL No. 9404 of 2026 3 during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (iii) The applicant 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 her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned court. (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) September 18, 2026 Radhika NABAIL No. 9404 of 2026 4 Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad