Allahabad High Court

MOHAMMAD NAZIMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: AVNISH SAXENA

Holding

The Court held that, given the applicant’s low flight risk, lack of arrest, and willingness to cooperate, anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC should be granted with conditions.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Mohammad Nazim, who was implicated in a case under the Cow Slaughter and Prevention Act, 1955 (sections 3, 5Ka, 5Kha, 8) and IPC sections 427 and 307. The FIR dated 18‑02‑2021 alleged the seizure of a truck carrying 19 cattle, one of which was found dead, and Nazim’s name surfaced from a co‑accused’s statement, though he had not been arrested. The applicant, already on bail in a separate Gangster Act case, sought bail to avoid arrest during the trial, citing low flight risk and willingness to cooperate. The Court, referring to Supreme Court precedents on anticipatory bail, evaluated the nature of the accusation, criminal antecedents, and risk factors, and granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions. The order emphasized that the bail grant does not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of the merits.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate scope of anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC in the present factual context?
Whether the applicant’s criminal history and the nature of the offences warrant denial of anticipatory bail?
Whether conditions can be imposed to ensure the applicant’s cooperation and prevent tampering with evidence?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Cow Slaughter and Prevention Act, 1955 — s. 3, 5Ka, 5Kha, 8
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 427
Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
Cow Slaughter Act
IPC 307
IPC 427
flight risk
bail conditions
criminal history

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. - 2102 of 2026

Mohammad Nazim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has hands up the supplementary
affidavit annexing criminal history, the same is taken on record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has
been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail
in Case Crime No. 52 of 2021, under Sections 3/5Ka/5Kha/8 of Cow
Slaughter and Prevention Act, 1955 and Section 427 and 307 IPC, P.S.
Saini, District Kaushambi during pendency of the trial.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR is lodged
by the police against four persons on 18.02.2021. The allegation in the FIR
is seizing of truck with 19 cattles, out of which one found dead. The
applicant was not arrested from the place of incident. It is from the statement
of co-accused, the name of accused/applicant has come into picture. The
applicant has sought anticipatory bail before this Court. The coordinate
Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 CrPc
No. 7771 of 2021 (Najim Vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 15.03.2021 has
granted anticipatory bail till the cognizance is taken by the Magistrate. After
submission of charge sheet, the cognizance is taken but the applicant
appeared and moved anticipatory bail before the sessions court, which was
rejected. There is one case of criminal history, which is of Gangster Act,
wherein the present case is made the base case. He is on bail in the gangster
case. The applicant want to appear before the trial court to face the trial but
apprehending arrest. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
NABAIL No. 2102 of 2026
2

5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

6. 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 applicant 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.

7. Considering that the accused/applicant has not been arrested during
investigation. Further 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.

8. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Mohammad Nazim involved in
the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the
Investigating Officer as the case may be within thirty 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 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
or tamper with the evidence.

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

(iii) The applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
NABAIL No. 2102 of 2026
3

fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel.

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

10. 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.

May 5, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…