SUDHIR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 8556 of 2026

Sudhir Yadav
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Suprabha Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.226 of 2026, under Sections 3/5A/8 of Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of The
Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act and Sections 109(1), 190, 3(5) of
the BNS, P.S.- Piparich, District- Gorkhpur with a prayer to enlarge him
on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-
mentioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was not named in the
FIR. A Pik-Up vehicle was detained by the police supposedly transporting
bulls for the purpose of slaughter and three alive bulls and one dead bull
were recovered from the said Pik-Up vehicle. None of the co-accused
were apprehended on the spot. The name of the applicant was disclosed
during investigation. No one was arrested on the spot. No instrument
which could be used for the purpose of slaughter was recovered from
the Pik-Up vehicle in question. Co-accused Sahab Ansari, Rojid Ansari,
Sunil Yadav, Dharmendra Prasad and Janardan Kanojia have been
granted regular bail by this Court. Applicant has no criminal antecedents.
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail but could not dispute the factual submissions made by learned
counsel for the applicant.
                                                      NABAIL No. 8556 of 2026
                               2

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought on the record.
6. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant's name has
surfaced during investigation. Similarly situated co-accused Sahab
Ansari, Rojid Ansari, Sunil Yadav, Dharmendra Prasad and Janardan
Kanojia have been granted regular bail by this Court. Applicant has no
criminal antecedents. The applicant is not stated to be the owner of
the Pik-Up vehicle which was supposedly transporting the livestock. The
two motorcycles that were also detained by the police do not belong to the
applicant.

7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to
enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Sudhir Yadav, he shall be
released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on
furnishing a personal bond and surety each 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;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 8556 of 2026
                                                                   3

                                    considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                                     (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Sachin




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad