Allahabad High Court

ALTAMAS KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to conditions, finding no sufficient ground to deny bail.

Summary

The applicant, Altamas Khan, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with a protest case where the FIR named 25 persons and 1,700 unnamed co‑accused. He contends that he is not named in the FIR, has no specific role, and has been falsely implicated, although he has four prior criminal cases. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges which include offences under numerous sections of the BNSS, the CLA Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The Court examined the Supreme Court precedents on anticipatory bail, considering factors such as the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, flight risk and willingness to cooperate. Finding low flight risk and the applicant’s assurance to cooperate, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions and a personal bond.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite not being named in the FIR.
Whether the applicant's prior criminal history and the seriousness of the charges preclude grant of bail.
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or threat to the investigation.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 109(1), 109(2), 118(2), 121(1), 189(5), 191(2), 191(3), 195(1), 196(1), 196(2), 223, 310(2), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2), 62
CLA Act — s. 7
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482
false implication
public protest
flight risk
bail conditions
criminal antecedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10783 of 2025

Altamas Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Waseem
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the applicants and
Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS
has been filed by the applicant- Altamas Khan with a prayer to release
him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0489 of 2025, under Sections
109(1), 109(2), 118(2), 121(1), 189(5), 191(2), 191(3), 195(1), 196(1),
196(2), 223, 310(2), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2), 62 of BNS and Section 7 of
CLA Act and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
P.S. Kotwali, District- Bareilly during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant
has not been named in the FIR which is lodged by the police on 26.9.2025
against 25 named and 1700 unnamed persons. The allegation in the FIR is
that co-accused Maulana Taukir Raza has instigated all the accused
applicants and other co-accused to start an unruly protest against the
Government wherein they have come out on road in heavy numbers and
led to the damage of public property, raised slogans, stone pelting and
taken the entire city for ransom. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that he has no role but he has been falsely implicated. The investigation is
continuing. The accused applicant has 04 cases of criminal history.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that similarly circumstanced
co-accused Mohd. Naeem Qureshi @ Lali has been granted anticipatory
bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.4.2026 in Crl. Misc.
NABAIL No. 10783 of 2025
2

Anticipatory Bail Application U/s482 BNSS No.3699 of 2026. The
accused applicant wants to co-operate in the investigation but
apprehending the arrest and seeks anticipatory bail. No specific role has
been attributed to applicant.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail.

5. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three
insightful judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh
Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565,
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is consistently
held by Hon'ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the
Court should considering the application of the applicants to evaluate the
threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of
accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated
implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to
cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and
flight risk.

6. Considering the role of accused applicant as is collected by the
Investigating Officer so far amongst 1700 co-accused, this Court while
considering the gravity of accusation, explained criminal history and
apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance
of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of
considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

7. The applicant-Altamas Khan involved in the aforesaid case crime
shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case
may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with
following conditions :-

(i) 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
NABAIL No. 10783 of 2025
3

to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court
on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and
(iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall
not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through their counsel.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as
an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely
free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
May 18, 2026
Ravi Prakash

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…