Allahabad High Court
GUDDU @ GUDDU KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Guddu Khan under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, with the only material linking him being a police informer's statement and no other admissible evidence. The State opposed bail, arguing the recovered remains were confirmed as cow parts and the applicant might be needed for interrogation. The Court noted the lack of tangible evidence, the applicant’s explained criminal history, and the fact that co‑accused in similar circumstances had been granted bail. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, directing immediate release upon arrest.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only allegation against the applicant is based on a police informer's statement without other evidence.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the nature of the offence under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act precludes anticipatory bail.
- Whether conditions can be imposed on the anticipatory bail to safeguard investigation and witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act — s. 3, 5, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- cow slaughter offence
- police informer
- CrPC Section 482
- U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10338 of 2026
Guddu @ Guddu Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Majid
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on the record.
2. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.537 of 2026, under Sections 3/5/8 of the U.P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S.- Bhojipura, District- Bareilly, with
a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends
his arrest in the above-mentioned case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was lodged against
unknown persons on the discovery of some animal remains. Learned
counsel for the applicant contends that the name of the applicant has
surfaced during investigation in the statement of the police informer.
There is no other admissible evidence against the applicant. The applicant
has a criminal history of one case in which the applicant had applied for
surrender before the concerned Court and the report of the police station
is that he is not wanted in the said case. Learned counsel for the applicant
further contends that the case of the applicant stands on a similar footing
to that of the co-accused Imtiyaz, Aziz-Ur-Rahman and Khaleel @ Abdul
Khaleek, who have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS Nos.8399 of
NABAIL No. 10338 of 2026
2
2026, 8447 of 2026 and 8538 of 2026.
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail and has submitted that the remains recovered were subsequently
confirmed, as per the FSL report, to be those of a cow or its progeny. The
name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation and he may be
required for custodial interrogation and further recoveries.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought on the record.
6. The criminal history of the applicant has been satisfactorily explained.
He is said to have been implicated in the present case on the basis of
information received from a police informer. There is no other tangible
evidence available against the applicant. The case of the applicant stands
on a similar footing to the that of the co-accused Imtiyaz, Aziz-Ur-
Rahman and Khaleel @ Abdul Khaleek, who have been granted
anticipatory bail.
7. 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 applicant on anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Guddu @ Guddu Khan, he
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 applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
ii. that 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;
NABAIL No. 10338 of 2026
3
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;
iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
11. 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
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…