Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SHAMSHAD AHAMADversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with conditions, finding no sufficient ground to deny bail.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Shamshad Ahamad, who was implicated in a case under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged against an anonymous person, that his name only surfaced through statements of co‑accused, and that he had no prior criminal record despite a supplementary affidavit indicating four pending cases. The State opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the offence and the applicant’s alleged involvement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents governing anticipatory bail, the court examined the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s alleged low flight risk, and his willingness to cooperate. The court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and several conditions aimed at preventing tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

Issues considered

  • Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the allegations under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
  • Whether the applicant's criminal antecedent and the gravity of the offence justify denial of bail.
  • Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or a threat to the investigation warranting the imposition of conditions on bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 482
  • U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act
  • flight risk
  • criminal antecedent
  • bail conditions
  • Allahabad High Court

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 3711 of 2026

Shamshad Ahamad
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Gaurav Kumar Shukla, Shivam Kumar
                                Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for accused applicant hands
up supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal history of applicant.
The same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Shukla and learned AGA for the State.

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. 45 of 2026, under Sections 3/5/8 of
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S.- Walterganj, District- Basti,
during pendency of the trial.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR is
lodged on 01.03.2026 against anonymous person when the informant
found a head of cattle. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has
apprehended some of the co-accused namely Bablu Sharma, Ishtekhar
Ahmad and Chotu. In the disclosure statement of these witnesses at the
time of arrest, the name of accused applicant came into picture. Further
submits that the applicant has no criminal history, though on the previous
date it is stated that the applicant has four cases of criminal history. The
first case is not registered against the accused applicant. In other cases,
the name of applicant is not in the FIR. Further submits that this is the
only explanation he has on date, explained in the supplementary affidavit
filed today. The accused applicant wants to co-operate in the investigation
                                                       NABAIL No. 3711 of 2026
                                2


but apprehending arrest. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

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. This Court considering that the name of accused applicant is disclosed
by the co-accused and 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. The applicant- Shamshad Ahamad 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 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.
                                                       NABAIL No. 3711 of 2026
                                3


(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
fixed, either personally or through his 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.

11. The below mentioned directions shall be complied with for
expeditious disposal of trial, in case charge sheet is submitted against
accused/applicant :-

11.1 As the investigation is continuing, in the event charge sheet is
submitted and cognizance is taken, it would be the duty of the
accused/applicants to appear before the trial court or Magistrate
concerned as the case may be without waiting for the issuance of
summons, within 60 days from the date of cognizance or on the date
fixed, which ever is earlier. So that the trial may not be delayed for non
execution of summons or processes.

11.2 The District Judge concerned shall direct each Magistrate and
Special courts to maintain a register of Anticipatory Bail orders granted
by this Court, wherein the details of Anticipatory Bail shall be entered.
The dedicated official shall be nominated in each Special court and
Magistrate court for maintaining the register.

11.3 The accused/applicants shall provide a copy of the final order of
anticipatory bail within 30 days, to the official concerned in whose
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 3711 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    jurisdiction the case lies and shall provide his complete contact details
                                    including the mobile number and E-mail ID (if maintained); any change
                                    in detail shall be informed by the applicant.

                                    11.4 On the submission of charge sheet and cognizance taken, the
                                    Presiding Officer shall fetch the details of the accused/applicants and the
                                    dedicated official shall inform the accused at the given detail.


                                                                                           (Avnish Saxena,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Sharad/-




Digitally signed by :-
SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
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.