Anwar Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125923

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5145 of 2025

Applicant :- Anwar Hussain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Danish,Rajiv Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The present application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.554 of 2018, under sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Syohara, District Bijnor.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was an agent of a company named Pulse Company situated at Moradabad. The amount was invested by the informant in the said company. No amount was credited in the account of the applicant. The receipt was also issued by the said company. Further, during the course of investigation, the applicant was granted the benefit of Section 41A I.P.C. Identically placed co-accused Chandra Shekhar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.4981 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. Investigation has been completed. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. Counsel for applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 , the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for

¶10

anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

It is further to be noted that as per Section 41-A I.P.C. also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

¶13

It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

¶14

It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would dis-entitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or

¶16

thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶17

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact that the amount was invested by the informant in the said company, no amount was credited in the account of the applicant, during the course of investigation, the applicant was granted the benefit of Section 41-A I.P.C., the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), chargesheet has been filed, the applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶18

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Anwar Hussain be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on 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:-

¶19

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶20

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

¶22

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶23

The application stands disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Manish Kr

¶25

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

Anwar Hussain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Hussain 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