Mohd Meraj vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7079 of 2025

Mohd Meraj

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Piyush Tripathi, Sheetanshu Dwivedi : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 71

¶6

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed in the matter is taken on record.

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Mohd. Meraj seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.527 of 2022 under Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj.

¶9

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

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. He has been falsely implicated in this case. During the course of investigation, notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was served upon the applicant and he cooperated with the investigation and not misused the said liberty. Now after submission of the charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation is required in the matter. He has not been declared proclaimed offender by the trial court. No process under sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that criminal history of solitary case has been explained. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the anticipatory bail.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration

¶13

NABAIL No. 7079 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶16

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶17

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶18

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

¶19

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the end of trial on his 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:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶22

(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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶23

(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 S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶24

In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶25

December 10, 2025 ss

¶26

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Meraj 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

Titu @ Nehna Jogi vs State of Up and 2 Others

Kailash Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajveer vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Tiwari @ Lavi Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another