Dismissed

Rasid @ Mutti v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2025/955/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J. rejected the anticipatory bail application. The court refused pre-arrest bail due to the applicant's criminal history and lack of material, directing him to approach the trial court for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; applicant directed to seek release on bail from the trial court.

Rasid @ Mutti Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45708

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 955 of 2025 Applicant :- Rasid @ Mutti Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Imaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohammad Imaran, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No 15 of 2025, under Sections 303(2) B.N.S., registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 31.01.2025 stating that 22 goats were stolen from the house of the informant in the night of 3/4.01.2025.

¶9

During investigation, the applicant has been implicated on the basis of custodial statement of a co-accused person.

¶10

A supplementary affidavit has been filed disclosing the applicant's involvement in 19 other cases, in all of which he has been granted bail.

¶11

Co-accused Sabir @ Kallan has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 07.05.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 405 of 2025. From a perusal of the aforesaid order dated 07.05.2025, it appears that the said coaccused had a criminal history of 10 cases whereas the applicant has a criminal history of 19 cases. The said coaccused also had a long criminal history of ten cases.

¶12

The material on the basis of which the applicant has been implicated, is not available before this Court.

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that all the accused persons have been granted regular bail by the Session Court.

¶14

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and this Court not is not persuaded to exercise its discretion by granting pre arrest bail to the applicant and he has also to appear before the trial court and seek his release on bail like other co-accused persons.

¶16

In these circumstances, the anticipatory bail application is rejected . In case the applicant appears before the trial court and apply for his release of on bail, his bail application shall considered expeditiously, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another: (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Preeti.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rasid @ Mutti v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasid @ Mutti v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mubarak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

M/s Assam Dental Supply Co. through its proprietor Sr, Manoj Jhingren vs Director General, medical and Health Services, Uttar Pradesh Swasthya Bhawan, Luknow and another

Nandani Medical Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Amit Sharmas vs U.P. Medical Supplies Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D. and another

Smt. Arti Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Milan Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rasid @ Mutti vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another