Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case of rape-related offences and trafficking; his alleged role was limited to threatening, being uncle of the main accused. Applying settled anticipatory bail principles, the court granted protection till filing of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC/193 BNSS.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8312 of 2025
Muzammil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s):Ambreen Masroor, Sadrul
Islam Jafri, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This application has been moved on behalf of the
applicant - Muzammil seeking anticipatory bail in Case
Crime No.23 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506 IPC
and 4/5/6 of Immoral Traffic Act, P.S. Thanabhawan,
District Shamli.
2. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Smt. Ambreen Masroor, learned counsel for the
applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
3. 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. The
investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet
has not been filed. It is also submitted that the
applicant has not been made an accused for the offence
under Section 376-D IPC and no role of rape has been
assigned to the present applicant, who happens to be the
uncle of the main accused Dr. Nadeem. Only role of
threatening has been assigned to the present applicant.
No incriminating article has been retrieved from the
pointing out or from the possession of the applicant. It
is further submitted that the applicant has criminal
history of a solitary case wherein his arrest has been
stayed by this Court. It has been submitted that in case
NABAIL No. 8312 of 2025
2
applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the
investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is not
cooperative with the I.O. of this case and that is why
non-bailable warrant has been issued against him. The
present applicant has played active role in commission of
the present crime. It is also submitted that the
informant / victim of this case has subsequently
committed suicide and another case has been lodged
wherein the applicant has also been made an accused.
However, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the
matter that the instant case does not relate to the
suicide committed by the victim and in that case another
F.I.R. has been lodged.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties.
6. As per the F.I.R. of this case, the young lady, who
was working at the clinic of the main accused Dr. Nadeem
as maid servant, was blackmailed by Dr. Nadeem on the
basis of some obscene videos relating to the informant
lady alongwith his friend Dr. Gayyur Ahmad. F.I.R. was
lodged and investigation started which is going on.
7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held 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.
NABAIL No. 8312 of 2025
3
8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of
our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an
accused during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime
or where there is a possibility of influencing the
witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an
arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate
that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made
between the existence of the power to arrest and the
justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation
and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer
has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or
disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated
with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on
the officer to arrest the accused.
9. 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 filing of police report under
Section 173(2) CrPC / 193 of BNSS before the Competent
Court.
10. The application is allowed accordingly.
11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be
released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House
Officer of the police station concerned with the
following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
(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
NABAIL No. 8312 of 2025
4
police office.
(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.
12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the
Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file
appropriate application for cancellation of protection
granted to the applicant.
November 3, 2025
safi
(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in Case Crime No.23 of 2025 under Sections 376-D, 504, 506 IPC and 4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherRelied on¶7
(2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & AnotherRelied on¶8
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Muzammil
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court