SHADABversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9093 of 2026

Shadab
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Akhand Pratap Singh, Subham Singh
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. This is a second anticipatory bail application. The first anticipatory bail
application of the applicant was rejected by this Court with the liberty of
filing a fresh application explaining in detail his criminal antecedents. The
criminal antecedents of the applicant have been explained in Paragraph
No. 28 of the affidavit as well as supplementary affidavit filed today in
Court. The explanation given by the applicant with respect to his criminal
antecedent of one case has not been disputed.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 453 of 2026, under Section 3/8 of the U.P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station- Lohiyanagar, District
Meerut, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant
apprehends his arrest in the above-mentioned case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant was
not named in the F.I.R. which was lodged against unknown persons.
Three co-accused namely Yunus, Amir and Talib were arrested by the
Police and from their possession no meat or carcass was recovered. The
co-accused Yunus, Amir and Talib have been granted regular bail by this
Court. The applicant's named has been mentioned during investigation in
the statement of co-accused and also the police informer which is
inadmissible in evidence.
                                                      NABAIL No. 9093 of 2026
                                2


5. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, but does not dispute the factual submissions made by Learned
counsel for the applicant.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought on the record.

7. The co-accused Yunus, Amir and Talib have been granted regular bail
by this Court. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons relating to
recovery of some animal remains suspected to be of Cow or its progeny.
Except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no other
legally admissible evidence against the applicant. The applicant has a
criminal history of one other case, which has been satisfactorily explained
in the supplementary affidavit. In the prima facie opinion of the Court, the
applicant is not likely to repeat the offence in near future.

8. 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.

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 -Shadab, 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;
                                                                                       NABAIL No. 9093 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                    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.



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




Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad