Allahabad High Court
MUSTAKEEM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, finding no sufficient material to justify denial.
Summary
The applicants, Mustakeem and Smt. Bhoori, who are the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law of the alleged victim, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case alleging that they administered a poisonous substance to the victim. The prosecution alleged offences under IPC sections 123, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 85, as well as sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, but the forensic laboratory could not confirm the presence of poison because the sample was not taken from a government hospital. The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The court noted the absence of definitive medical evidence, the fact that similar co‑accused Shahnuma had been granted anticipatory bail, and that the applicants’ prior case did not involve a sentence of more than seven years. Considering these circumstances, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions and ordered that the applicants be released if arrested.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in the absence of conclusive forensic evidence of poisoning.
- Whether the applicants’ familial relationship to the victim and prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.
- Whether the allegations under IPC and D.P. Act warrant denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Delhi Police Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 123, 351(3), 352, 85
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- poison allegation
- forensic evidence
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
- family relationship
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9349 of 2026
Mustakeem And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Srivastava, Ch. Dil Nisar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicants, the Learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in Case Crime No. 24 of 2026, under Sections 123, 115(2), 352,
351(3), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar,
District -Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as
the applicants apprehend their arrest in the above-mentioned case.
3. The Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants
are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the daughter of the informant, who
stated to be the injured in the present case. The allegation is of administering
some poisonous substance to the victim. The victim was medically examined
by a private doctor, who is said to have supposedly extracted some material
from the body of the victim and sent for toxicological examination for
determination of poison. However, the Forensic Science Laboratory has
returned the same by stating that the FSL is authorized to accept samples
only from the government hospitals or as directed by the Courts. He further
contends that there is no material to indicate that the victim was ever fed any
poisonous substance. He further argued that similarly situated co-accused,
Shahnuma, had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL No.
6055 of 2026. The applicants were also co-applicants in the above-
mentioned anticipatory bail application, but due to non-explanation of their
criminal antecedents, the Learned counsel for the applicants was permitted
to withdraw the bail applications with the liberty of filing a fresh application.
This second bail application may be considered afresh and may be treated to
be the first bail application of the applicants. The applicants have one
previous case registered against them, in which the applicants are on bail.
The offences in the previous case do not in the event of a conviction entail
imprisonment of more than 7 years.
NABAIL No. 9349 of 2026
2
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail,
but could not dispute the factual assertions made by the learned counsel for
the applicants.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought on the record.
7. The applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim. At
present, there is no definitive medical evidence to indicate that the injured
was fed any poisonous substance. The two other injuries that have been
found on the person of the injured have not been opined to be grievous in
nature or dangerous to life. Similarly situated co-accused Shahnuma, had
been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL No. 6055 of 2026.
The husband of the injured has been granted regular bail.
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 applicants on anticipatory bail.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is
allowed.
10. In the event of the arrest of the applicants -Mustakeem and Smt.
Bhoori, they 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
ii. that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;
iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;
iv. that the applicants 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.
September 11, 2026
Sartaj
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…