KAMLESH YADAV @ KARIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S
              482 BNSS No. - 6667 of 2026

Kamlesh Yadav @ Kariya
                                                   .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Mansi          Mishra,       Pramod
                                Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
            HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the
State and perused the record.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.297 of 2026, under Sections 3/5A/
5B/ 8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station -
Chandauli, District Chandauli, with a prayer to grant him
anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
absolutely innocent. He has nothing to do with the alleged
offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest him. He has
been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the
confessional statement of co-accused Rakesh Paswan. As per the
prosecution case, two cows progeny were being transported by
co-accused Rakesh Paswan, who stated that the applicant had
financed some money for purchasing the vehicle. The applicant
was not shown to be present at the place of the incident. No
weapon of slaughtering or beef was recovered from the
possession of the co-accused Rakesh Paswan. It is further
contended that transportation of cow progeny within the State of
                                                   NABAIL No. 6667 of 2026
                           2


U.P. is not an offence. It is further submitted that the confessional
statement of a co-accused is not admissible in evidence. Apart
from the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no
admissible evidence against the applicant. The applicant was
earlier implicated in one case being Case Crime No. 174 of 2020.
However, the police, after due investigation, submitted a final
report in that case. Apart from that case, the applicant has no
criminal antecedents to his credit. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes to
cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and
when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court
concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is
granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail,
shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the
conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application
for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual
aspect.

6. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused
the record.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held 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.
                                                    NABAIL No. 6667 of 2026
                           3


8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our
constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused
during investigation arises when custodial investigation
becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a
possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may
abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is
lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A
distinction must be made between the existence of the power to
arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and
self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no
reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey
summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to
arrest the accused.

9. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory
bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of
accusation, 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.

10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with
following directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Kamlesh Yadav @
Kariya, involved in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on
anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the
police station concerned or the court concerned.

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer
during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer
as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
                                                                                           NABAIL No. 6667 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                        (iii) 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 her/him from disclosing such
                                        facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

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

                                        11. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public
                                        Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is
                                        at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of
                                        anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned
                                        court.




                                                                                  (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

                                        September 28, 2026
                                        Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad