ALI RAZAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S
              482 BNSS No. - 2025 of 2026



Ali Raza
                                                  .....Applicant(s)
                              Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)           : Mithilesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      : G.A.

Court No. - 72


           HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the
applicant, Mr. B.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. 84 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Chamanganj,
District Kanpur Nagar, with the prayer that in the event of
arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant
that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
this case. It is further submitted that the applicant is a marginal
witness of a hibbanama (gift deed) executed in the year 1990
by co-accused Nafar Ali in favour of Ishtiyak Ahmad, Fulam
Waris, Mustak Ahmad. It was also submitted that applicant
undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as
and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has
been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail,
he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with
the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
                                                   NABAIL No. 2025 of 2026
                          2


4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail.

5. The applicant is said to be a marginal witness in the
hibbanam, which is said to have been executed in the year 1990
in favour of Ishtiyak Ahmad, Fulam Waris, Mustak Ahmad.

6. 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, Court must consider nature and gravity of
accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee
from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available
material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of
the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law
regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties, 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.

8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ali Raza involved in
the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail
on 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 applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he
would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless
exempted by the Court concerned;

(ii) 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/her/them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
                                                                                        NABAIL No. 2025 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                        (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not
                                        misuse the liberty of bail.

                                        (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior
                                        permission of the Court concerned.

                                        10. 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 applicant.


                                        March 18, 2026
                                        Virendra

                                                                             (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad