Bhuttan @ Mohd. Sikander vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8420 of 2025

Bhuttan @ Mohd. Sikander	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Rajeev Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 71

¶5

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Bhuttan @ Mohd. Sikander seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 205 of 2025, under Sections 325, 111 BNS, Police Station- Incholi, District- Meerut.

¶8

The police was informed of the matter that the named accused persons were alleged to cause death of buffaloes and cows of several villagers by the present accused along with other co-accused persons by administering some poison and when the animals died then after slaughtering them they supplied their meat to the hotels. FIR was lodged on 29.6.2025 at 14.34 hours just after the incident took place.

¶9

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. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that present accused applicant was not present on spot when the alleged incident occurred. It is further submitted that on the confessional statement made by named accused Farman the name of the present accused applicant came into light. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in five other criminal cases and in all the cases he has been granted bail. It is further submitted that the co-accused Imran and Rizwan have been granted anticipatory bail in Cr.Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 6207 of 2025 vide order dated 11.8.2025 by the coordinate Bench of this Court. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

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, llikelihood 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

¶12

NABAIL No. 8420 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

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.

¶16

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of 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) Cr.P.C./ 193 of BNSS before the competent Court.

¶17

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

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:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

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

¶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 S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

November 13, 2025

¶24

Fhd

¶25

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhuttan @ Mohd. Sikander v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuttan @ Mohd. Sikander 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

Similar cases

Smt Hema @ Prem Lata vs State of U.P.

Akeel Mohammad and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Kaptan Alias Kaptan Singh Alias Sukhdev vs State of U.P.

Sumit vs State of U.P.

Akash Kumar vs State of U.P.

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Patel vs State of U.P.