USMAN AND AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9301 of 2026

Usman And And 2 Others
                                                          .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And Another
                                                             .....Opposite
                                                                   Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :   Shahabuddin, Zia Uddin
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :   G.A.

Court No. - 43
                      HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Heard Sri Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the applicants; learned AGA
for the State and perused the material on record.

The second anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants, Usman, Farhan @ Monu and Nauman, with a prayer to
release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2021, under
Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506. 307, 34 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali
Dehat, District- Bijnor.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were
granted protection till the submission of the police report vide Criminal
Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3228 of 2021.
As yet, only summons/bail warrants have been issued against them. They
were working in Delhi and could not know about the charge-sheet having
been submitted against them. Applicant no. 1, Usman, has a criminal
history of two cases to his credit, as per the learned A.G.A.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the
allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of
anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on
any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory
bail cannot be granted.
                                                       NABAIL No. 9301 of 2026
                                2


Regarding Applicant no.1, Usman:-

After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for
granting anticipatory bail to applicant no.1, Usman since he has criminal
history of two cases to his credit.

This application is, accordingly, rejected qua applicant no.1, Usman.

However, on the request of learned counsel for the applicants, it is
directed that in case applicant no.1 appears before the court below within
60 days from today and applying for regular bail, his bail application shall
be considered as per judgement and order of Apex Court in the case of
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.
5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022.

For a period of 60 days, the applicant no.1 shall not be arrested in the
aforesaid case, if not already arrested.

However, in case, the applicant no.1 does not appears before the court
below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against
him.

It is made clear that the applicant no.1 will not be granted any further time
by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

Regarding applicant nos. 2 & 3, namely, Farhan @ Monu and
Nauman:-

After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case
registered against the applicant nos.2 & 3. It cannot be definitely said
when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of FIR the arrest
can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the
police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The
courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the
police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where
arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is
required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human
rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR
1994 SC 1349 the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National
                                                      NABAIL No. 9301 of 2026
                               3


Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in
India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report
suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either
unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action
accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a
very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it
becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and
considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant nos.2
& 3, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the
Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila
Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future
contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant nos.2
& 3 shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex
Court.

In the event of arrest, the applicant nos.2 & 3 shall be released on
anticipatory bail. Let the applicant nos.2 & 3 involved in the
aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of
trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following
conditions:-

1. The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall not leave the country during the
pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

2. The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the
concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the
concerned Court.

3. That the applicant nos.2 & 3 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;

4. The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall file an undertaking to the effect that they
                                                                                           NABAIL No. 9301 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the
                                    witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall
                                    be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass
                                    orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

                                    5. In case, the applicant nos.2 & 3 misuses the liberty of bail, the Court
                                    concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and
                                    judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT
                                    of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

                                    6. The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall remain present, in person, before the trial
                                    court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge
                                    and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the
                                    opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without
                                    sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such
                                    default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in
                                    accordance with law.

                                    In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt.
                                    Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for
                                    cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.



                                                                                                  (Siddharth,J.)
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Ruchi Agrahari




Digitally signed by :-
RUCHI AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad