Istakhar @ Taro And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4181 of 2026

Istakhar @ Taro And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Alok Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 71

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Learned AGA for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 333, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the accused/applicants are father and son. The allegation in the FIR dated 09.11.2025 is that the accused/applicants had entered the house of informant and started beating him with lathi and danda. The informant suffered injuries. The injuries are simple in nature. There is no motive assigned for the said voluntary causing hurt. The accused/applicants and informant are of adjoining village. The accused/applicants have no criminal history. During investigation, the accused/applicants have not been arrested. The charge sheet is submitted and the applicants want to appear before the trial court but apprehending arrest. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants.

5. 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 applicants 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.

6. Considering that the accused/applicant have not been arrested during the investigation. Further this Court, while considering the gravity of accusation 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.

7. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Istakhar @ Taro and Vikar involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer as the case may be within thirty 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 :-

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

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

(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.

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

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

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

9. 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.

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

May 7, 2026

Abhishek Sri.