Allahabad High Court

MURAD ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that, given the applicant’s cooperation, the absence of any likelihood of tampering or fleeing, and the principles laid down in Supreme Court precedents, anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC was warranted.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Murad Ali under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 409 and 120B IPC. The applicant claimed innocence, highlighted a two‑year delay in filing the FIR, and asserted that the money involved had been returned to the complainants. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Relying on precedents that require the court to assess the nature of the offence, the accused’s role, and the risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing, the Court found that the applicant’s cooperation and lack of any indication of such risks justified bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond, sureties, and specific conditions, while reserving the right to cancel bail on misuse.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 409 and 120B IPC.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents preclude anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing the jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 409

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
personal liberty
offences under 409 IPC
offences under 120B IPC
delay in FIR
bail conditions
cooperation with investigation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9217 of 2026

Murad Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devi Prasad Tripathi, Sanjay Tiwari
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. 32 of 2019, under Sections 409, 120B IPC, Police Station
E.O.W., District Meerut, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

4. 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. It is further submitted that the alleged incident had taken place
between 25.6.2013 and 10.7.2017, whereas the first information report was
lodged after more than two years on 1.8.2019. The delay in lodging the first
information report has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.
As per the allegations levelled in the first information report the applicant's
company received some amount from several persons to provide them loan
from the bank. They received the amount from the innocent persons in the
name of processing fees and taxes. It is further submitted by learned counsel
for the applicant that the money received from them has been returned. He
has drawn attention of this Court to the statements of Abhishek Kumar, Smt.
Suman Gupta, Smt. Sita Devi, Smt. Mandavi Devi, Smt. Sita Devi and
several others, who stated that they have received the amount from one Om
Prakash. Statement of Om Prakash was recorded during the course of
investigation, who stated that the amount of Rs. 2,73,579/- has been returned
NABAIL No. 9217 of 2026
2

by the company, which has been disbursed among aggrieved persons. It is
further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents of three cases,
which have been explained in paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit.
The police did not try to arrest him for the past seven years and now police
are trying to arrest the applicant. 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.

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
NABAIL No. 9217 of 2026
3

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- Murad Ali, 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 to 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 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 29, 2026
Radhika

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…