MAQBOOLversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9064 of 2026

Maqbool
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Sudarshan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar Singh, G.A., Shubham
                                Singh

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

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

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No. 73 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 308(5), 309(4),
61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station - Puramufti, District Prayagraj, with a prayer
to grant him anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing
to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest
the applicant. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on
16.06.2026, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after two days on 18.06.2026
against the applicant and three others co-accused Shah Faisal, Anas and
Abid Pradhan, one unknown person. It is further contended that a false
allegation of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been made in the F.I.R., instituted
by an Advocate. The allegations are per se false. There is no evidence
against the applicant that he demanded ransom and snatched Rs. 2500/-,
except the statement of the informant. The applicant has been nominated in
the present matter due to ulterior motive. Earlier the applicant was
implicated in two cases; out of two cases, he has been acquitted in one case,
whereas in another case final report was submitted by the investigating
officer after due investigation and that final report has been accepted by the
                                                       NABAIL No. 9064 of 2026
                                2


court concerned vide order dated 16.11.2023. It is further submitted that co-
accused Mohammad Anas has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2026 in NA Bail No.
8308 of 2026. 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/she 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.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that bail cancellation
application has been moved by the informant against Mohammad Anas,
therefore, the applicant cannot seek parity of order dated 11.09.2026 passed
in NA Bail No. 8308 of 2026.

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

6. 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.

7. 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
                                                        NABAIL No. 9064 of 2026
                                3


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.

8. 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.

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Maqbool involved in aforesaid
case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on
his/her 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;

(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.

10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 9064 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
                                    applicant, before the concerned court.




                                                                                      (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    A.P. Pandey




Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad