CHAND MOHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10247 of 2026

Chand Mohammad And 2 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :   Kapil Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :   G.A., Jitendra Bahadur Singh

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

1. Heard Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jitendra
Bahadur Singh, learned counsel 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 applicants in Case
Crime No. 143 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352,
125, 109(1) of B.N.S. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act,
Police Station - Kakore, District Bulandshahar, with a prayer to grant them
anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no. 3 has
been arrested by the police on 21.09.2026, therefore, he may be permitted
to delete the name of applicant no. 3 from the array of the parties.

4. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant is allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete the name of
applicant no. 3 from the array of the parties, during the course of the day.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
They have nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police
are trying to arrest the applicants. The F.I.R. of the present case was lodged
against 13 named accused. The injured who are two in number, have not
sustained injuries which are commensurate to the number of accused. There
                                                      NABAIL No. 10247 of 2026
                                 2


are cross version and from the side of the applicant, one of the co-accused
Hanif, has lodged an F.I.R. in which two injured are also accused. The
identically situated co-accused Waseem has been granted anticipatory bail
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2026 passed in
Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 B.N.S.S. No. 7890 of
2026. The other co-accused Farman, Haseen Mukeem and Nizam, have been
granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
29.05.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18678 of 2026. The
criminal antecedent of five cases of applicant no. 1 has been explained in
paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 29.09.2026, criminal
history of one case of the applicant no. 2 has been explained in paragraph no.
7 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the
applicants undertake 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 applicants are granted
anticipatory bail, they 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.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, they
do not dispute the factual aspect.

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

9. 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.
                                                        NABAIL No. 10247 of 2026
                                3


10. 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.

11. 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.

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicants- Chand Mohammad, Nadim
involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial, on their 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 applicants 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 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 her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer; and
                                                                                        NABAIL No. 10247 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court.

                                    13. 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
                                    applicants, before the concerned court.




                                                                                      (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 30, 2026
                                    A.P. Pandey




Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad