Arun Charan vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 5119 of 2026
Arun Charan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kumar Vikrant
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Kumar Vikrant, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the
records.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No.244 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC,
Police Station Mutthiganj, District Prayagraj, with a prayer to grant him
anticipatory bail.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a first information report was
lodged by the first informant on 17.12.2017 at 21:54 hours, which was
registered as Case Crime No.244 of 2017, under Sections 147, 419, 420,
467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mutthiganj, District
Prayagraj, wherein, it is claimed by the informant that he is a power of
attorney holder of Maharaja Anant Narayan Singh. He looks after and
manages the properties of Maharaja in District Allahabad. The FIR was
lodged against as many as 11 persons. The applicant was not nominated
as an accused in the FIR.
4. It has been alleged in the FIR that Mr. Arun Pal, accused in the FIR,
alleged Secretary of the Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association, along with
his close associates, prepared some forged documents in order to grab the
land, which belongs to Maharaja Anant Narayan Singh. A forged order
dated 10.04.1974, allegedly passed by Sri S.P. Pal, Munsif (West),
Allahabad, was prepared. However, the informant came to know through

NABAIL No. 5119 of 2026
2
the Right to Information Act that Shri Chakarvarti Prabhakar Mishra was
the Presiding Officer from 01.04.1974 to 30.04.1974 and he was
appointed as Munsif (West), Allahabad. The order was not found in the
records room. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 20.08.2017, the
accused persons nominated in the FIR reached the property, which was in
possession of the informant, and hurled abuses and threatened with dire
consequences. Lastly, it is alleged that the accused persons nominated in
the FIR were trying to grab the land in dispute on the basis of forged
documents.
5. 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 the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant is
not named in the FIR. The first informant or the other witnesses did not
take the name of the applicant as accused when their statements were
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The FIR was lodged against 11
persons; however, investigation was dropped against 9 named accused
and no chargesheet was submitted against them. Further, submission was
made by the learned counsel for the applicant that, in fact, the Lucknow
Diocesan Trust Association (hereinafter referred to as a "Company") is a
Company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1913 and the Company is the sole owner and in possession of several
lands including the Araji No.143. The aforesaid Company holds,
manages, and looks after all the immovable properties of the different
churches that fall under the territorial jurisdiction of the Diocese of
Lucknow. Several land mafias, political leaders, and builders wanted to
grab the said properties illegally. There are several disputes pending in
different courts and the Company is contesting the same. Therefore,
several false first information reports were lodged against the office
bearers of the company. Some persons wrongly and illegally claimed their
ownership of the land of the Company.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
material facts were concealed by the first informant at the time of
registration of the FIR. In fact, a civil suit in respect of land in dispute i.e.,
Araji No. 143, was pending as Original Suit No.1199 of 2015 (Lucknow

NABAIL No. 5119 of 2026
3
Diocesan Trust Association Vs. Deep Chand Kesharwani), wherein
interim application under Section 6-C was allowed in favour of the
Company by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.03.2016 and the
defendant was restrained by the learned court from interfering with the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff. In order to nullify the order dated
10.03.2016, passed by the learned trial court, the present FIR was lodged
on 17.12.2017 against office bearers of the Company. The civil dispute
has been wrongly converted into criminal courts, though no prima facie
offence is made out from perusal of the FIR.
7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as
per the version of the FIR, the informant's counsel obtained information
as to who was presiding in the court of Munsif (West), Allahabad from
01.04.1974 to 30.04.1974 and he was informed that during that period
Shri Chakravarti Prabhakar Mishra was posted as Munsif, (West),
Allahabad. In fact, the wrong information was provided by the concerned
officers of the High Court and the same error was later on rectified on
09.01.2018, and that it was provided by the High Court that Shri Sharda
Prasad lal was posted as Munsif (West), in District Allahabad during 1st
April, 1974 to 30th April, 1974, a copy of the information provided by the
High Court on 09.01.2018 has been appended as Annexure-9 to the
affidavit filed in support of the present anticipatory bail application. The
investigating officer has made entry of this information in Parcha No.VII
of Case Diary dated 16.01.2018 and that he recorded the statement of
concerned officer of the Allahabad High Court.
8. Further submission was made by the learned counsel for the applicant
that he has nothing to do with the aforesaid Company. He was not holding
any post in the Company. A civil dispute was already going on between
the parties. It was concealed by the informant that a civil suit was pending
in respect of the land in dispute, wherein they have already taken the plea
that forged documents were prepared by the office bearers of the
company. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily
explained. The applicant was made accused after a very long time on
16.01.2021 and there is no admissible evidence against the applicant
except his confessional statement. The arrest of the applicant was stayed
by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 12.04.2019 in

NABAIL No. 5119 of 2026
4
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9250 of 2019. The charge sheet has
already been submitted by the investigating officer, and the applicant
cooperated in the investigation. Since the chargesheet has already been
submitted in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of
custodial interrogation of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents to his credit.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahdoom Bawa vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of
S.L.P. No.376 of 2023 . Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and shall appear as
and when required by 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 in the trial, and shall abide by all the
conditions that may be imposed by the Court.
10. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail. It is contended that the complicity of the
applicant has surfaced during the course of investigation and after due
investigation, he has been chargesheeted in this case. The Investigating
Officer has collected sufficient material against the applicant to prosecute
him. The applicant has no apprehension of his arrest; therefore, he ought
to have obtained regular bail and his anticipatory bail application is liable
to be rejected.
11. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.
12. The applicant has not been named in the FIR. No allegation was
levelled by the informant against the applicant either in the FIR or in his
statement. The arrest of the applicant was stayed during the course of
investigation by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2019. The investigation
is complete, and the charge sheet has been submitted before the court
concerned, and cognizance has been taken. There is no allegation against
the applicant that he did not co-operate in the investigation. The evidence
has already been collected by the investigating officer, and the case is

NABAIL No. 5119 of 2026
5
based upon documentary evidence.
13. In the case of Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru vs. State of Gujarat and
, the Apex Court has granted anticipatory bail to
Another, 2025 INSC 246
the accused, who has already been chargesheeted. The relevant
paragraphs of , is reproduced as
Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru (supra)
under:
"5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State, relying upon the
additional affidavit filed by the Investigating officer, submitted that the
investigation is over, and as per his instructions, the charge-sheet has
already been filed in the case.
6. Learned counsel, Ms. Aastha Mehta, appearing for respondent no.2
(prosecutrix), however, has objected to the granting of the anticipatory
bail to the appellant by submitting that the appellant had cheated the
respondent no.2 (prosecutrix) under the pretext of marriage. She further
submitted that their marriage was also not registered, however they had
married as per their customs.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the parties and to the fact that now the charge-sheet has
already been filed but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, we are inclined to accept the present appeal.
8. Hence, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, in
connection with the F.I.R. No. 11203024220505 dated 16.07.2022,
registered at Police Station-B-Division, District- Junagadh, he shall be
released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and
conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court. He shall continue to
co-operate with the investigation."
14. In the case of
Musheer Alam vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 18081 of 2024, decided
, the Apex Court granted bail once the investigation was
on 17.01.2025
over and chargesheet was filed by the C.B.I. in the court concerned. The
relevant paragraphs of are reproduced as under:
Musheer Alam (supra),
"5. We take notice of the fact that the investigation is over and charge-

NABAIL No. 5119 of 2026
6
sheet has been filed in the CBI Court at Gorakhpur.
6. While the investigation was in progress, the Investigating Officer did
not deem fit to arrest the petitioner herein.
7. The CBI Court has taken cognizance and has issued summons to the
petitioner herein to appear.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected
after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the
charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this
unusual practice except that it makes no sense.
9. We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet
is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court
concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court."
15. In the case of Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. No. 376 of 2023, decided on
20.03.2023, the Apex Court again granted anticipatory bail once the
chargesheet was submitted by the investigating agency. The relevant
paragraphs of Mahdoom Bava (supra) are reproduced hereunder:
"10. More importantly, the appellants apprehend arrest, not at the behest
of the CBI but at the behest of the Trial Court. This is for the reason that
in some parts of the country, there seems to be a practice followed by
courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in
response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has
to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for the present to note that it is
not the CBI which is seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend
that they may be remanded to custody by the Trial Court and this is why
they seek protection. We must keep this in mind while deciding the fate of
these appeals.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the
appellants are entitled to be released on bail, in the event of the Court
choosing to remand them to custody, when they appear in response to the
summoning order. Therefore, the appeals are allowed and the appellants

NABAIL No. 5119 of 2026
7
are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, subject to
such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Court,
including the condition for the surrender of the passport, if any."
16. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :
"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a
Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had
been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance
or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed
in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It
has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court
is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of
arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of
arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under
Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall
not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due
service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii)
above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.
12. In so far as the present case is concerned and the general principles
under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para
(v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-
bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of
investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is
released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient
to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set
out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has
not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest
and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not
agree more with this."
17. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is
no allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the

NABAIL No. 5119 of 2026
8
investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant.
18. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my
view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of
trial in the matter.

19. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with
following directions:-
(i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant- Arun Charan,
involved in aforesaid case 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 court
concerned.
(ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.
(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court; and
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.
20. 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.)
October 22, 2026
Nitendra
Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad