MEER HASAN MIDDA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10042 of 2026

Meer Hasan Midda And 3 Others
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Dinesh Kumar Dubey, Sunil Kumar
                                Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Alok Kumar Gupta, G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Alok Kumar Gupta, the

Learned counsel appearing for the informant, the Learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the

applicants in Case Crime No.402 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 110,

127(2), 74, 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Muslim Women

(Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019, P.S.- Baghpat, District-

Baghpat, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the

applicants apprehend their arrest in the above-mentioned case.

3. At the very outset, the Learned counsel for the applicants contends that

the applicant nos. 3 and 4 have been arrested and this application, so far

as applicant nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, has become infructuous.

4. In view of the above, this application is dismissed as infructuous for

applicant Nos.3 and 4.


5. The Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that applicant

Nos.1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the injured. The
                                                    NABAIL No. 10042 of 2026
                               2


allegation is of the applicants and the other accused assaulting the victim

and causing injuries to her. Learned counsel has stated that the F.I.R. has

been lodged with a delay of 41 days. A general role has been assigned to

the accused. There is a previous matrimonial dispute between the parties

for which a case being Case Crime No. 673 of 2020 under Sections 498A,

323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. had been lodged and the parties had compromised

the matter and the victim had supposedly started living with the applicants

and the other co-accused again. Learned counsel has submitted that this

First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of concocted

injuries. None of the injuries suffered by the victim have been opined to

be grievous in nature or dangerous to life. Similarly situated co-accused,

Afsar who is the husband of the injured has been granted anticipatory bail

by this Court in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1966 of 2026. Applicant nos. 1

and 2 have no criminal antecedents.

6. Learned counsel for the informant and the Learned A.G.A. have

opposed the prayer for bail and have contended that the applicants are

repeat offenders and their greed for demand of dowry could not be

fulfilled by the informant and they assaulted the informant and caused

serious injuries which were examined on the same day. The delay in

lodging of the F.I.R. was on account of the fact that the applicants had

taken the informant and dropped her off in an injured condition at her

parental house.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the

parties and perused the material brought on the record.

8. The F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of 41 days. The allegation of

assaulting the injured with an intent to kill or knowing that she would die
                                                     NABAIL No. 10042 of 2026
                                3


from the injuries sustained and then dropping her off at her parental house

prima facie does not appeal to the Court. No explanation with respect to

the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. has been given. A previous matrimonial

dispute between the parties exists and in the opinion of the Court, the

implication of applicant nos.1 and 2 who are the father-in-law and

mother-in-law on account of matrimonial dispute, cannot be ruled out.


9. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to

enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.

10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants

is allowed.

11. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Nos.1 & 2, Meer Hasan @

Midda and Smt. Imeana, they shall be released forthwith in the

aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond

and surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House

Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following

conditions:-

i. the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a

police officer as and when required;

ii. that 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;

iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous

permission of the Court;

iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
                                                                                        NABAIL No. 10042 of 2026
                                                                     4


                                    witness;

                                    12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned

                                    shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

                                    13. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively

                                    for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be

                                    considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                                     (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Sachin




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad