Allahabad High Court

MOBINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing release on bail with conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Mobin, was named as an accused in a murder case arising from the death of his sister‑in‑law, based primarily on a second dying declaration that alleged his presence at the scene, although the first declaration omitted his name and call records placed him at his shop. He contended that he was falsely implicated, had no criminal record, and cooperated with the investigation, while the State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual background. The Court examined the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal and Siddharth, emphasizing the need to assess the nature of the offence, the accused's role, and the risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing. Finding that the applicant’s alleged involvement was minimal, that he was not present at the time of the incident, and that there was no likelihood of influencing witnesses, the Court concluded that the criteria for anticipatory bail were satisfied. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and specific conditions, and ordered that any breach could lead to cancellation of the bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant given the nature of the allegations and his alleged role in the offence.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or fleeing from justice.
Whether the inclusion of the applicant’s name only in the second dying declaration affects the grant of bail.
Application of the Supreme Court’s guidelines from Sushila Aggarwal and Siddharth cases to the present anticipatory bail application.

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 115(2), 351(2), 80(2), 85
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Delhi Police Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
false implication
dying declaration
personal liberty
investigation cooperation
witness tampering
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10226 of 2026

Mobin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranshu Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Singh, G.A., Neetu

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the informant and 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. 161 of 2026, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 351(2) BNS and
Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut 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. The first information report of the present case was lodged
against nine persons including the present applicant. The alleged incident is
said to have taken place on 19.4.2026 at 12:30 P.M. The applicant is brother-
in-law of the deceased. Prior to death of the deceased her two dying
declaration were recorded by the Investigating Officer. First statement /
dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 23.4.2026, wherein she
did not take name of the applicant as an accused rather she stated that the
applicant went to his shop at the time of incident and her husband and
brother-in-law (jeth) were present in Delhi. She further stated that her
mother-in-law, two sisters-in-law (nanad and devrani) were present in the
house at the time of alleged incident. The deceased specifically stated that
her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. Thereafter, second
NABAIL No. 10226 of 2026
2

statement of the deceased was recorded on 1.5.2026, wherein she reiterated
the allegations made in her earlier statement, however, this time, she claimed
the presence of the applicant in the house at 08:00-08:30 A.M. She alleged
that she was beaten up by the applicant and others on the date of incident
and claimed that the applicant was also present in the house at the time of
the alleged incident, however, she further alleged that she was set on fire by
her mother-in-law. No specific role has been attributed to the applicant. The
Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, collected call detail
records of the applicant and found that the applicant was present in his shop
at the time of alleged incident and rushed to his house after the incident. It is
further submitted that the second statement was given by the deceased after
due consultation with her family members. Infact, the applicant was not
present in his house at the time of alleged incident.

4. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation against him and two
sisters-in-law (nanad and devrani) of the deceased and that the applicant was
not present in the house, therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible
for the offence. It is further submitted that initially the applicant was not
charge-sheeted and he was exonerated by the Investigating Officer but
during the course of further investigation, he was also made accused in the
present case on the strength of subsequent statement of the parents-in-law of
the deceased. The co-accused Salim (father-in-law) and Abdul (husband of
the deceased) have been enlarged on regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 21.7.2026 and 17.8.2026 respectively, a copy of
the orders have been appended as Annexure-19 to the application. It is
further submitted that the bail application of the mother-in-law has been
rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.9.2026.
The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and the investigation is
almost complete and that the charge-sheet has already been submitted
against the other co-accused, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial
interrogation of the applicant. 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 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.
NABAIL No. 10226 of 2026
3

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

6. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record.

7. The applicant has not been nominated by the deceased in her first dying
declaration / statement. No reason whatsoever has been given by the
deceased or any other witness as to why name of the applicant was not taken
by the deceased in her first statement. The case of the applicant is
distinguishable from the case of co-accused Vasheela (mother-in-law), Alina
(devrani) and Shahzadi (nanad) and parity of this order would not be granted
to them.

8. 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.

9. 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
NABAIL No. 10226 of 2026
4

accused.

10. Considering the settled principle 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 on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

11. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following
directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant-Mobin 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 Station House Officer of the police station
concerned or to 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 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.

12. 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 30, 2026
Lalit Shukla

Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…