Aftab Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

Aftab Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail not granted; applicant granted liberty to approach the court concerned for regular bail, to be considered expeditiously in terms of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, if applicable.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted to the applicants (Aftab Ahmad and 2 others) in Case Crime No. 158 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 354, 323, 504 I.P.C.

Court's answer

Upon consideration of the submissions and material on record, the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor has any allegation been levelled against him, having been nominated only on the basis of the statement of injured Aniket Balmiki.

Ratio / Principle

The aspect of involvement of the applicant pertaining to Section 354 I.P.C. would require consideration by the trial court.

Key takeaways

Since the charge sheet has already been filed, the Court does not find any good ground to grant any indulgence, i.e., anticipatory bail is not granted.ratio¶13
The applicant is granted liberty to approach the court concerned for regular bail, which may be considered expeditiously in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, if applicable.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (No. 501 of 2025) concerning Case Crime No. 158 of 2023, P.S. Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich, under Sections 147, 148, 354, 323, 504 I.P.C. The Court observed that the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor specifically alleged against, having been nominated only on the basis of the statement of injured Aniket Balmiki; however, the charge sheet having already been filed, and the aspect of involvement pertaining to Section 354 I.P.C. requiring consideration by the trial court, no good ground was found to grant any indulgence. The application was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to approach the court concerned for regular bail, to be considered expeditiously in terms of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, if applicable. (Manish Mathur, J.; Order Date 14.5.2025)

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28023

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 501 of 2025

Applicant :- Aftab Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1.

In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.158 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 354, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich.

As per contents of F.I.R., applicant along with co-accused is said to have molested some girls in the presence of informant and his friend Aniket Balmiki.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which is evident from fact that he is neither named in the F.I.R. nor has any specific allegation been made against him. It is submitted that even statements of ladies who were present do not indicate applicant's presence and his name has been nominated only on the basis of statement given by injured Aniket Balmiki. It is submitted that applicant has been nominated only on the basis of previous enmity.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that charge sheet in the matter has already been filed and applicant's involvement is clearly made out.

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor has any allegation been levelled against him but has been nominated only on basis of statement of injured Aniket Balmiki. The aspect of involvement of applicant pertaining to Section 354 I.P.C. would require consideration by trial court. Since charge sheet has already been filed, this Court does not find any good ground to grant any indulgence in the matter. However, applicant is granted liberty to approach court concerned for regular bail, which may be considered expeditiously in terms of decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau

of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, if applicable.

Anticipatory Bail Application is finally disposed of with aforesaid observation.

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 kvg/-

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench