Hakeek Khan @ Hakeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

Hakeek Khan @ Hakeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory-bail application allowed ('स्वीकृत'). Bail made subject to six conditions printed at ¶16–¶22: (i) the applicant shall present himself at the appointed time for interrogation by the police authorities if required; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police authority; (iii) he shall not leave the country/India without prior permission of the court; (iv) he shall appear on the date fixed for trial in terms of the undertaking, until personal attendance is exempted; (v) he shall not exert pressure upon / threaten the complainant-informant; (vi) he shall cooperate in the investigation and trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to applicant Hakeek Khan @ Hakeem under Section 482 BNSS in Case Crime No. 178 s.n. 2025 registered under Sections 3/5/8 of the Uttar Pradesh anti-unlawful-religious-conversion statute of 1955 (printed: 'उत्तर पदकेश गकोविधि वनविप् **र** ाण अधधिवनयम, 1955') at the police station named in ¶8, district Bahraich; the prayer clause ('अवग्रिम जिमप्रानत ककी पप् **र** ार्मानप्रा ककी हहै।') follows immediately in the same paragraph.

Court's answer

Reason relied on by the court: the case was entered in the secret-information register merely on the basis of suspicion ('मात्र शक के आधार पर दर्ज कराई गई'), which the court took into account ('उपरोक्त तथ्यों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए') in favour of the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Reason relied on by the court: the investigating officer recorded that, apart from the recovery of illegal meat attributed to the petitioner (याचिकाकर्ता) during the raid/inspection of the spot, no other evidence was found.

Key takeaways

Reason relied on by the court: no examination/testing of the recovered meat took place; consequently the court found that the applicant had been made an accused solely on the basis of the statement given by co-accused Haneef while in custody (clause runs from ¶13 into the continuation in ¶14). An intermediate printed clause ('जिससे यह सिद्ध हो कि वह गौमांस रहा') is OCR-corrupted and possibly missing a negation; it has deliberately not been relied upon in this statement.ratio¶¶13
On the above findings the court expressed its opinion ('न्यायालय का मत है कि प्रार्थी इस प्रकरण में...', opinion clause beginning in ¶13 and concluding in ¶14) that the applicant is entitled to / deserves the grant of anticipatory bail in this matter.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH) — Subhash Vidyarthi, J. (Neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:45879; order dated 6.8.2025). Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 935 of 2025 by Hakeek Khan @ Hakeem (counsel: Pawan Kumar Sharma) against State of U.P. — ALLOWED. Application related to Case Crime No. 178 s.n. 2025 under Sections 3/5/8 of the statute printed as 'उत्तर पदकेश गकोविधि वनविप् **र** ाण अधधिवनयम, 1955' (UP anti-unlawful-religious-conversion statute), district Bahraich. Factual matrix: on a secret-information-register entry of 31/05/2025 (meat lying in a hut outside co-accused Haneef's house, suspected to be beef), a raid yielded only about 500 grams of suspected illegal meat from the applicant's hut and no other material; about 250 metres away, bovine head and hooves were recovered from a pit dug in a field; the applicant's father/co-accused Haneef, in a custodial statement, named the applicant and three others as having slaughtered a cow in the hut for its meat, cooked the meat and buried it in the pit; a bladed article was recovered on his indication; Haneef and the three other co-accused had already been released on regular bail while the Additional Government Advocate opposed anticipatory bail for the applicant. Holding: the register entry rested on mere suspicion; the investigating officer recorded no evidence beyond the meat; the meat was never examined; the applicant therefore stood implicated solely on the co-accused's custodial statement — the court held he was entitled to anticipatory bail and allowed the application, subject to six standard conditions (availability for interrogation; no inducement/threat/promise touching case facts; no departure from India without court's permission; attendance on trial dates till exemption; no pressure on the informant; cooperation with investigation/trial and no misuse of bail liberty).