Allahabad High Court
CHUIYYA ANSARI @ MOHD FAREED ANSARIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The court held that, given the applicant’s claimed innocence and lack of risk, anticipatory bail should be granted until the conclusion of the trial.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC filed by Chuiyya Ansari @ Mohd Fareed Ansari, who alleged false implication in a case involving multiple IPC offences. The applicant argued that the charge sheet named a different person and that police harassment indicated a lack of credible evidence against him. The State opposed the bail, but the court, relying on precedents such as Sushila Aggarwal and Asha Dubey, examined factors like the nature of the offences, the applicant’s role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing. Finding no substantial risk and noting the settled law that anticipatory bail may continue until trial, the court granted bail with a personal bond and specific conditions. The order also directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months as per Section 309 CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the applicant’s alleged false implication and identity confusion.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be extended for the entire duration of the trial under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or fleeing justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 309, 482
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 124A, 147, 148, 149, 295A, 307, 336, 427, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- identity confusion
- false implication
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3997 of 2026
Chuiyya Ansari @ Mohd Fareed Ansari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Najam Uz Zaman Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 120B, 336, 427, 504, 295A, 124A IPC and 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Aligarh.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter
due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has
been filed against one Chuiyya Ansari, while applicant is actually Mohd.
Fareed Ansari. Although an application has also been moved on behalf of
accused-applicant before learned C.J.M. Court, Aligarh clarifying the fact
that charge sheet has been submitted against some Chuiyya Ansari S/o
Masoom Ali and his name is Mohd. Fareed Ansari S/o Masoom Ali but
the police officials are regularly visiting the house of Mohd. Fareed
Ansari and harassing him and concerned police official also submitted
police report on 05.01.2004 that no person with the name of Chuiyya
Ansari is residing in Mohalla Parkatan. From the police report dated
27.10.2024, it is also evident that on the application of the applicant, the
police personnel visited the area of the applicant, where he got to know
from neighbours that no person namely Chuyya Ansari is residing in the
Mohalla Parkatan. It it also submitted that the case diary dated 23.06.2002
shows that along with the applicant, Saleem Ansari (S/o Kaleem), Samad,
NABAIL No. 3997 of 2026
2
Saleem (S/o Tammi) and Bittu were also named as accused but they were
acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 26.10.2007 in S.S.T. No.
204/2006. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in case of Asha Dubey vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024 decided on 12.11.2024 (paras
5, 8 and 10). It is next submitted that applicant is having apprehension of
arrest by the police any time in the above-mentioned case, whereas there
is no credible evidence against him. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation/trial.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
5. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on
the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of
limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto
conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail
granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused,
continue after filing of the charge sheet till trial. It has been further held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant
of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the
role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of
investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating
witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It
has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering
whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a
matter of discretion.
6. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail,
nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant
till the trial.
7. The application is allowed accordingly.
8. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Chuiyya Ansari @ Mohd
NABAIL No. 3997 of 2026
3
Fareed Ansari shall be released on anticipatory bail till the end of trial 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 make himself/herself available before the
Investigating Officer/Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and
will cooperate in the investigation/trial.
(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police office.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court and if he/she has passport, the same shall be deposited by
him/her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
9. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground
for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
10. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of
6 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, strictly
as per the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. on day-to-day basis without
granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal
impediment.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 12, 2026
KK Patel
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…