MOHAMMAD AMEENversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 4088 of 2026

Mohammad Ameen
                                                          .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :    Dipendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :    G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Dipendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant
and Learned AGA for the State.

2. 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. 563 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420,
120-B IPC, P.S.- Line Bazar, District - Jaunpur, during pendency of the
trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the informant
has lodged the false and frivolous FIR against the accused applicant who
stood sureties for co-accused Hameeda. The allegation is only in respect
to the change of name of co-accused for whom he stood sureties as
Hameeda is also known by the names Mirchi, Jamila and Shakeela. It is
further contended that during investigation, the accused applicant has not
been arrested. The charge sheet has been submitted. He has no criminal
history. He is apprehending arrest, though, he wants to join the trial.
Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

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

5. 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,
                                                       NABAIL No. 4088 of 2026
                                2


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.

6. Considering the role of the accused applicant, the gravity of
accusation 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.

7. The applicant- Mohammad Ameen 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.

(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.
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 4088 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
                                    fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel.

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

                                    9. 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.



                                                                                               (Avnish Saxena,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Krishna*




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