FATICHAND YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10160 of 2026

Fatichand Yadav
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Atul Kumar
                                Srivastava
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.183/2026, under Sections 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, Section 8(1) of the Cow Protection Act and Section 11 of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station - Gadvaar, 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
him. It is further submitted that the applicant is not nominated in the FIR
dated 08.07.2026, which was lodged against four co-accused persons. The
co-accused did not take the name of the applicant when their confessional
statements were recorded. The applicant was made an accused in the present
case, being the owner of Vehicle No. UP60AT9427. It is further contended
that, as per the allegation contained in the FIR, some cow progeny were
being transported. No beef or weapon of slaughtering was recovered from
the vehicle in question. 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
                                                       NABAIL No. 10160 of 2026
                                 2


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,
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 10160 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    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- Fatichand Yadav, 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