Allahabad High Court
SAVEZ KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant until the filing of a police report, subject to conditions.
Summary
Savaz Khan applied for anticipatory bail in a criminal case (Crime No.203 of 2026) alleging false implication in a property dispute. He faced charges under several sections of the B.N.S., including a provision (Section 338) that carries a life imprisonment penalty. The applicant highlighted that a co‑accused in the same matter had already been granted anticipatory bail and argued that the dispute is essentially civil. The State opposed, citing that the offences do not attract a sentence of more than seven years and referenced Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar and related cases. The Court observed that the applicant’s antecedents were explained, the case mirrors that of the co‑accused, and there was no likelihood of the applicant committing the alleged offence. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail until the filing of a police report, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the nature of the dispute and the charges framed.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 318(4), 338, 3(5), 351(3), 35(3), 61(2)(B)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- property dispute
- false implication
- criminal antecedents
- Section 338
- Supreme Court guidelines
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9681 of 2026
Savez Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Farid Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.203 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 61(2)(B),
115(2), 351(3), 338, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali Dehat,
District Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as
the applicant apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is sought to be
arrested by the police for a dispute which is primarily civil in nature
relating to property. Similarly situated co-accused has been granted
anticipatory bail till filing of a police report in NABAIL No.7424 of 2026.
The case of the applicant stands on a similar footing. The applicant has
criminal history of two cases. In one case the applicant has been acquitted
and in the other case the applicant is on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has
contended that the offences in question are not punishable with more than
seven years in the event of conviction and the applicant has no
apprehension of arrest as his interest is protected by Section 35(3) of
B.N.S.S. and the directions given by the Supreme Court in the cases of
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr. 2014 (8) SCC 273, Mohd.
NABAIL No. 9681 of 2026
2
Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. (2023) 8 SCC 63 and
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 INSC
115.
5. Rejoining the issue, Learned counsel for the applicant has contended
that during investigation Section 338 B.N.S. has been added, which
entails, in the event of conviction, punishment of life imprisonment. He
has further stated that co-accused Adnan and Mujiyan have been arrested
by the police.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
7. Co-accused Mohd. Ahamad @ Sonu has been granted anticipatory bail
by this Court till filing of a police report. The case of the applicant stands
at par with that of the co-accused. There appears to be a property dispute
between the parties and rival claims are being set up. The criminal
antecedents of the applicant have been properly explained and in the
opinion of the Court, the applicant is not likely to indulge in any such
offence in the near future.
8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail till filing of police
report.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
10. Till filing of the police report, in the event of the arrest of the
applicant-Savez Khan, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case
crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety 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
NABAIL No. 9681 of 2026
3
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;
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 17, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…