Allahabad High Court
NADEEM KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail must be granted to the applicant as no specific role was attributed to him and similar co‑accused had been released on bail.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Nadeem Khan under CrPC Section 482 in connection with a FIR alleging his participation in a large-scale protest that resulted in public property damage. The FIR named 25 individuals and 1,700 unnamed persons, but the applicant asserted that he had no specific role and was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail, yet could not dispute that similarly situated co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail in related proceedings. The Court noted the absence of any specific allegation against the applicant, the possibility of false implication, and the applicant's willingness to cooperate with the investigation despite a substantial criminal history. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions and ordered his immediate release upon arrest.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite the FIR naming him among many accused in a public order case
- Whether the applicant's criminal history and the seriousness of the alleged offences preclude bail
- Whether the grant of bail to similarly situated co‑accused influences the decision
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- public order offences
- criminal history
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8520 of 2026
Nadeem Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.G.Karunakar, Ritesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned A.G.A. for the State as well
as perused the record.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the Learned counsel for the applicant today in
Court, is taken on the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No.489 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 109(2), 118(2), 121(1), 189(5),
191(2), 191(3), 195(1), 196(1), 196(2), 223, 310(2), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2), 62 of BNS,
Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, P.S. Kotwali, District- Bareilly, with a prayer to enlarge him on
anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-mentioned case.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the First Information Report
has been lodged against 25 named and 1700 unnamed persons. The allegation in the
FIR is that co-accused Maulana Taukir Raza has instigated the applicant and other co-
accused to start an unruly protest against the Government wherein they have come out
on road in heavy numbers and led to the damage of public property, raised slogans,
stone pelting and taken the entire city for ransom. Learned counsel for the accused
applicant submits that the applicant has no role but he has been falsely implicated. The
investigation is continuing. The criminal history, which has kept on enhancing due to
police action so far has been explained in the case. The accused applicant has a
criminal history of 20 cases, out of which 13 cases have been lodged with respect to
the present incident stated to be 'Bareilly riots'. The applicant is not a previous convict.
The applicant wants to co-operate in the investigation but apprehending the arrest and
seeks anticipatory bail. No specific role has been attributed to the applicant. The
similarly situated co-accused Moin Khan, Waliuddin, Afzal Quiraishi and Nasir Khan
have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL Nos.7276/2026,
6087/2026, 5005/2026 and 9070 of 2026 and the co-accused Mohd. Naeem Qureshi @
NABAIL No. 8520 of 2026
2
Lali, Mohd. Moveen have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in 3699/2026.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however could not dispute the fact
that similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties.
7. The applicant although named in the First Information Report, no specific role has
been given to the applicant. The First Information Report has been lodged against 25
named and 1700 unnamed persons. The false implication of the applicant cannot be
ruled out. Similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court. The criminal history of the applicant has been properly explained.
8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to
enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
10. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Nadeem Khan, he shall be released
forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal
bond and surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of
the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-
i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
ii. that 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;
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the
Court;
iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding
the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion
on the merits of the case.
September 8, 2026
Sachin
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…