Yusuf Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:98352

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4668 of 2025

Applicant :- Yusuf Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neha Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,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. 371 of 2024, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly, during the course of investigation.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. There is delay in lodging of the first information report but no plausible explanation has been given. The injured has not sustained any fire arm injury. It is then submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident nor he has been assigned any specific role. It is also submitted that the co-accused namely, Talib has already been granted bail by the court concerned (Reference paragraph no.17 of the affidavit accompanying the present bail application). The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is also submitted that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation till submission of charge-sheet and will not misuse the liberty of aforesaid interim protection.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will also cooperate in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the argument that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant

¶12

shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant-Yusuf involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

¶20

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

¶21

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him/her/them in accordance with law.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶23

(Madan Pal Singh, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 20.6.2025 Sushil/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yusuf v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yusuf 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases