SAHBAZ @ MOHD SHAHBAJversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9224 of 2026

Sahbaz @ Mohd Shahbaj
                                                                 .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         :   Akhilendra Yadav, Animesh Shukla, Vishal
                                     Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    :   G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 311 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 308, 504 of
I.P.C., P.S. Firozabad South, District Firozabad, 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. As per X-ray report of injured, four persons Kamil, Akram,
Riyaz and Tasleem sustained injuries on their person. There is no
supplementary medical report of the aforesaid injured to show that their
injuries are grievous in nature or dangerous to life. In the absence of
supplementary medical report, injuries shall be presumed to be simple in
nature. No person had sustained fracture in the incident. It is further
submitted that the applicant was not arrested during course of investigation
since the offences were punishable below seven years of imprisonment. The
chargesheet had already been submitted in the present case on 03.06.2019
and the learned court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence vide
order dated 24.07.2020. Non-bailable warrant has been issued against the
applicant without service of summons. It is further submitted that there is no
legal bar that the anticipatory bail cannot be granted if non-bailable warrant
has been issued against the applicant. In support of his submissions, learned
                                                             NABAIL No. 9224 of 2026
                                   2


counsel for the applicant relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Asha Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 5633.

4. It is further submitted that since the chargesheet had already been
submitted, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant. General and vague allegations have been levelled against the
applicant and other co-accused in the F.I.R. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents to his credit. It is further contended that co-accused Abdul
Salam Farooqi Advocate has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court
vide order dated 10.08.2026 in NABAIL No.6973 of 2026. Learned counsel
for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant undertakes to cooperate
during trial and shall appear as and when required by 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 trial, 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 rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

7. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no
allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the
investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant.

8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :

     "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a
     Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had
     been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance
     or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed
     in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It
     has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court
     is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of
     arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of
     arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under
     Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall
                                                             NABAIL No. 9224 of 2026
                                   3

     not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due
     service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii)
     above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

     12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles
     under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para
     (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-
     bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of
     investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is
     released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
     during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient
     to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set
     out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has
     not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest
     and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
     be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not
     agree more with this."

9. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a
fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the
matter.

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

(i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant- Sahbaz @ Mohd
Shahbaj, involved in 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 court
concerned.

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.

(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; and

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 9224 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    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