Allahabad High Court

INTAKHABversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of direct evidence and given the potential injustice of arrest, anticipatory bail must be granted subject to standard conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Intakhab under Section 482 CrPC in a case under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that his inclusion in the FIR was based solely on the confessional statements of co‑accused Ashif and Kaleem, which are inadmissible as sole evidence. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that require assessment of the nature of the offence, the applicant's role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing, the Court found a case for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond, sureties, and conditions of cooperation, non‑interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving India.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the applicant is implicated solely on co‑accused confessional statements in a cow‑slaughter case.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or absconding.
Whether the discretion under Section 482 CrPC permits the grant of anticipatory bail in the present circumstances.

Legislation cited

U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 — s. 3, 5, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act
confessional statements
Section 482 CrPC
personal liberty
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S
482 BNSS No. - 9809 of 2026

Intakhab
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajendra Prasad Shukla,
Rishabh Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and 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. 414 of 2026, under Sections 3/5/8 of
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station -
Kotwali Mandi, District Saharanpur, 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. The applicant has
been nominated in the F.I.R. on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused Ashif and Kaleem, who were arrested on
the spot. As per the prosecution case, the applicant managed to
run away from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that
the name of the applicant has surfaced in the present case on the
basis of confessional statement of co-accused which is not
admissible in evidence. Apart from confessional statement of co-
accused, there is no other evidence against the applicant. It is
further submitted that co-accused Kaleem and Ashif, who were
arrested on the spot, have been enlarged on regular bail by a co-
NABAIL No. 9809 of 2026
2

ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 09.09.2026 and
16.09.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 31899 of
2026 and 33002 of 2026, respectively. The recovery of 60 kg
beef was shown from the possession of the aforesaid co-accused,
who have already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his
credit. 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.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application
for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual
aspect.

5. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused
the record.

6. 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.

7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court
NABAIL No. 9809 of 2026
3

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 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.

8. 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.

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Intakhab involved in
aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial, on his/her 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 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
NABAIL No. 9809 of 2026
4

facts of the case so as to dissuade her/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.

10. 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.

September 21, 2026
A.P. Pandey

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…