Allahabad High Court

IMRANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, holding that the evidence was insufficient to justify denial.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Imran under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving alleged violations of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The FIR was originally lodged against a co‑accused, Raja @ Rajuddin, for possession of 40‑45 kg of cow meat and alleged arms offences. The only material linking Imran to the crime were the co‑accused’s confessional statement and call detail records showing communication between them; no direct evidence or ownership of the vehicle from which the meat was recovered was established. The State opposed bail, arguing the confession implicated Imran, while the applicant highlighted his clean record and lack of direct incriminating evidence. The Court held that the evidentiary material was insufficient to deny anticipatory bail, noted Imran’s lack of criminal antecedents, and consequently granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only evidence against the applicant is a co‑accused’s confession and call records.
Whether the applicant’s alleged contact with the co‑accused suffices to deny bail under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the absence of direct evidence and the applicant’s clean criminal record warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 4
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act — s. 11
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act — s. 3, 5, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
cow slaughter
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
Arms Act
criminal antecedents
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9878 of 2026

Imran
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari
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. 187 of 2026, under Section 3/5/8 of the U.P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act, Police Station- Nauhjhil, District Mathura, with a prayer
to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest
in the abovementioned case.

3. The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that initially the
FIR was lodged against the co-accused, Raja @ Rajuddin, under Section
11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 4 and 25 of
the Arms Act. It is alleged that approximately 40-45 kilograms of cow
meat was recovered from the possession of co-accused Raja @
Rajuddin. The Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended
that except the confessional statement of the co-accused Raja @ Rajuddin
and the call detail records, which merely show that the applicant was in
contact with Raja @ Rajuddin, there is no other direct evidence against
the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

4. The Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended
that the cow meat was recovered from the co-accused Raju @ Rajuddin.
The applicant was in constant contact with the co-accused Raja @
NABAIL No. 9878 of 2026
2

Rajuddin. The confession of the co-accused directly implicates the
applicant in the alleged offence and he may not be considered for grant of
anticipatory bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.

6. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Except the confessional
statement of the co-accused and call detail records, there is no other
evidence against the applicant. The applicant is not stated to be the owner
of the E-rickshaw in question from which the cow meat was supposedly
recovered.

7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Imran, he shall be released
forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a
personal bond and surety in the like amount 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
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;
NABAIL No. 9878 of 2026
3

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

11. 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 29, 2026
Junaid

Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…