Mohd. Arif and Another vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.278 of 2025, under Sections 333, 115(2), 352, 75, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicanta may be released on bail.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicants were served a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and now the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. It is further submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to cooperate in the trial. It is also submitted that the applicants are having criminal history of one case, which has been explained in the memo of application. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶12

As per first information report, applicants were served a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and now the charge sheet in this case has already

¶13

NABAIL No. 10028 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

been submitted. It is further submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to cooperate in the trial. It is also submitted that the applicants are having criminal history of one case, which has been explained in the memo of application.

¶16

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶17

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicants - Mohd. Arif and Munsheed involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶21

(ii) The applicants 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

(iii) The applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶23

(iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶24

NABAIL No. 10028 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶27

December 16, 2025 RKM

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Arif and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Arif and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Singhal vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Yadav @ Monu Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Tigar vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Alias Raju and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopa Das vs State of U.P.

Upendra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another