Allahabad High Court
MULAYAM SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail to the applicants subject to conditions.
Summary
The applicants, Mulayam Singh and Mainudeen @ Irshad Ali, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS in a case registered under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act concerning alleged illegal possession of urea. They argued that they had cooperated with the investigation, had no prior criminal record, and were merely proprietors of the firm from which the urea was recovered, with no direct recovery against them. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offence and the involvement of the co‑accused Bahadur, who had already been granted bail. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the need to consider the nature of the accusation, the accused’s antecedents, and the risk of fleeing. After weighing the submissions and the material on record, the Court held that the criteria for anticipatory bail were satisfied and granted the relief with a personal bond and specific conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in view of the nature of the allegations under the Essential Commodities Act
- Whether the applicants' role and lack of prior criminal history justify the grant of bail despite the seriousness of the offence
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 35(3), 482
- Essential Commodities Act — s. 3, 7
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Essential Commodities Act
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- urea seizure
- co‑accused
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 1818 of 2026
Mulayam Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surendra Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri O.P.
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime
No. 119 of 2025 under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act Police Station
Mohana, District-Siddharth Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the
applicant may be released on bail.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that notice under Section
35(3) of the BNSS was duly served upon them, and they have cooperated with the
investigation. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Bahadur, has already been
granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, vide order
dated 11.02.2026, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482
BNSS No. 1112 of 2026. Learned counsel for the applicants further submit that, as per
the First Information Report, certain bags of urea were recovered from the possession
of the co-accused Bahadur without any valid documents. The name of the present
applicants have surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused. The
applicants have merely been shown as the proprietor of the firm from which the said
urea is alleged to have been recovered, and no direct recovery has been made from the
applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history and he
undertakes to co-operate during trial and to appear as and when required by the
investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not
misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail.
5. The co-accused, Bahadur, has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of
this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 11.02.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.1112 of 2026, and the charge sheet has also been submitted in the case. Notice
NABAIL No. 1818 of 2026
2
under Section 35(3) of the BNS was duly served during the course of investigation.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of
accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and
that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and
the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.
8. Considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, settled principle of
law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature
of accusation, role of applicants and without expressing any opinion on merits, a case
for anticipatory bail is made out.
9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
10. In the event of arrest of applicants Mulayam Singh and Mainudeen @ Irshad
Ali involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on
them furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and shall appear before the trial
Court either in person or through counsel on each and every date fixed unless
exempted by the Court concerned and shall not seek any undue adjournment;
(ii) 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 them
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of
bail.
(iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court
concerned.
11. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file
appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
March 16, 2026
Neetu
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NEETU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…