ROHIT RAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10152 of 2026

Rohit Ram
                                                                 .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P.
                                                            .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :   Pramod Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                 :   G.A.

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. 104 of 2026, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960, Police Station - Phephna, District Ballia, 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
the applicant. Although the applicant is named in the F.I.R., his alleged
involvement has surfaced only on the basis of statement of a co-accused. It is
further contended that statement of a co-accused is not admissible in
evidence. The police detained six vehicles, arrested co-accused Shani Ansari
and Suraj Mallah and recovered 17 cows and 9 calves from their possession.
No beef or instrument of slaughtering was shown to be recovered from the
possession of the aforesaid co-accused. It is further submitted that co-
accused Pankaj Kumar, who is also nominated in the F.I.R., has been
enlarged on anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 07.08.2026 passed in NABAIL No. 7730 of 2026. It is further
submitted that the identically situated co-accused, Golu @ Sanjay Kumar
Bharti, has also been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.09.2026 in
NABAIL No. 9864 of 2026. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his
credit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
                                                       NABAIL No. 10152 of 2026
                                 2


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
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
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 10152 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    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- Rohit Ram, 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 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 29, 2026
                                    Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad