Billu Alias Sharif Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103602

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3739 of 2025

Applicant :- Billu Alias Sharif Ahamad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2024, under Sections 379 IPC and 26, 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act, Police Station Patwai, District Rampur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel next submits that the applicant has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. He lastly submits that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A.has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

Perusal of the record shows that there is specific allegations against the applicant. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , has held 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

¶11

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.

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is refused.

¶14

However, it is open for the applicant to move regular bail before the concerned Court below. In case, such an application for bail is moved before the concerned Court below, then it is expected that the concerned Court below shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the necessary guidelines for grant of bail as laid down in the matter of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) , without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Saurabh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Billu Alias Sharif Ahamad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Billu Alias Sharif Ahamad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases