Allahabad High Court
SMT SHABEENA KHATOONversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Shabeena Khatoon in a case where she was not named in the FIR but was implicated through a recovered marks sheet and a co-accused's confessional statement. The applicant argued that similar co-accused who were also not named in the FIR had been granted anticipatory bail in earlier matters. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the similarity of the applicant's situation and noted she had no criminal antecedents. The Court observed that there was no direct evidence against the applicant, the investigation of other co-accused was complete, and she was not required for further custodial interrogation. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, emphasizing that the order was limited to the bail application and not an opinion on the merits of the criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the applicant is not named in the FIR but is implicated through indirect evidence such as a marks sheet and a co-accused's confession.
- Whether the lack of direct evidence and the applicant's clean criminal record justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the applicant can be subjected to the same bail conditions as similarly situated co-accused.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- no FIR naming
- indirect evidence
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
- clean criminal record
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9906 of 2026
Smt Shabeena Khatoon
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Singh, Vikas Sharma
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.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.70 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 336(3),
338 and 340(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station – Kakrauli, District
Muzaffarnagar, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail, as the
applicant apprehends her arrest in the aforesaid case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant was
not named in the First Information Report (FIR). The FIR was lodged
against ten named accused. The police supposedly recovered a marks
sheet supposedly belonging to the applicant and it is on the basis of the
said marks sheet and the confessional statement of the co-accused that the
applicant has been implicated. Learned counsel has further submitted that
similarly situated co-accused Aarifa, Aasif @ Mohd Aasif and Jamal have
been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL No.7543 of 2026
, 8584 of 2026 and 8375 of 2026 respectively. The other accused have
been granted regular bail. The case of the applicant stands on a similar
footing.
4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not
dispute the fact that the case of the applicant stands on a similar footing to
that of the co-accused. Learned A.G.A. has stated that the applicant has
no reported criminal antecedents.
NABAIL No. 9906 of 2026
2
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties.
6. Similarly situated co-accused Aarifa, Jamal and Aasif alias Mohd
Aasif, who were not named in the FIR, have been granted anticipatory
bail by this Court. Except for the confessional statement of the co-accused
and the recovery of a marks sheet said to be of the applicant, there is no
other direct evidence against the applicant. Investigation, so far as the
other co-accused are concerned, is over and in the opinion of the Court,
the applicant is no longer required for any custodial interrogation. The
applicant is a young lady aged about twenty eight years having no
criminal history.
7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, as discussed above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on
anticipatory bail.
8. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Smt. Shabeena Khatoon,
involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory
bail, on her 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 herself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
ii. 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. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court;
iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;
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
NABAIL No. 9906 of 2026
3
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 30, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…