Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MOHD YUNUSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Mohd Yunus under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant claimed false implication and pointed out that co‑accused Aqueel Ahmad, Mohd Farookh (Chotu) and Ahmad Nabi had already been granted anticipatory bail in similar proceedings. The State opposed the relief but did not dispute the applicant’s bail status in the base cases or the precedent of bail to the co‑accused. After reviewing the submissions and record, the Court, without opining on the merits, decided to enlarge anticipatory bail to the applicant, imposing standard conditions and a personal bond with sureties. The order clarified that any breach of conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC in view of the facts and the bail granted to similarly situated co‑accused.
  • Whether the applicant’s alleged false implication warrants denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 482 CrPC
  • U.P. Gangsters Act
  • false implication
  • co‑accused bail precedent
  • bail conditions

Judgment

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 1729 of 2026

Mohd Yunus
                                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                             :     Atul Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                        :     G.A.

Court No. - 71
                     HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as
perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social
Activities (Prevention) Act-1986, Police Station- Kotwali, District Pilibhit, (State Vs.
Ahmad Nabi and Others) with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, during the
pendency of trial.

3. The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant states that on the
basis of two base cases mentioned in the gang chart, proceedings of Gangsters Act
have been initiated against the applicant. In both the cases, the applicant is on bail.
The Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that co-accused Aqueel Ahmad,
Mohd Farookh @ Chotu and Ahmad Nabi have already been granted anticipatory bail
by this Court vide its orders dated 16.03.2026, 25.02.2026 and 25.02.2026 passed in
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2492 of 2026 (Aqueel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Another), CRIMINAL MISC.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1432 of 2026 (
Mohd Farookh @ Chotu Vs. State of U.P.) and CRIMINAL MISC.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1093 of 2026 (
Ahmad Nabi Vs. State of U.P. and Another), respectively.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, however, has not
disputed the fact that the applicant is on bail in the base cases mentioned in the gang
chart against him. The Learned A.G.A. has also been unable to dispute the fact that the
similarly situated co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties and
perused the material brought on the record.

6. The applicant has been implicated in the present case on the strength of two base
cases mentioned in the gang chart. Similarly situated co-accused Aqueel Ahmad,
Mohd Farookh @ Chotu and Ahmad Nabi have already been granted anticipatory bail
by this Court vide its orders dated 16.03.2026, 25.02.2026 and 25.02.2026 passed in
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                                                                                                   NABAIL No. 1729 of 2026
                                                                         2

                                    - 2492 of 2026 (Aqueel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Another), CRIMINAL MISC.
                                    ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1432 of 2026 (
                                    Mohd Farookh @ Chotu Vs. State of U.P.) and CRIMINAL MISC.
                                    ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1093 of 2026 (
                                    Ahmad Nabi Vs. State of U.P. and Another), respectively. The applicant is not
                                    reported to be a previous convict in any of the case.

                                    7. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances as discussed above and
                                    without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate 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- Mohd Yunus, he shall be released
                                    forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal
                                    bond and two sureties 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;

                                    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.




                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Sachin
                                                                                                  (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.