Sardar Kuraishi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112622

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2218 of 2025

Applicant :- Sardar Kuraishi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sangeeta Shukla,Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the applicants, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Nagendra Mishra, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

This application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No.258 of 2024, under sections 325 B.N.S., and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Shamshabad, District Agra.

¶9

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicants was disclosed by coaccused Rauf, who was arrested at the spot. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicants, is unreliable. False recovery of cow meat has been shown. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicants with the offence. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

Learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants the fact that the name of the applicants was disclosed by co-accused Rauf, who was arrested at the spot, there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants Sardar Kuraishi and Pathan Kuraishi be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under section 193(3) B.N.S.S., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶19

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 S.S.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sardar Kuraishi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardar Kuraishi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases