Anticipatory bail application in a buffalo theft case where the applicant was unnamed in the FIR but implicated through a co-accused's statement. The court found no good ground for anticipatory bail and rejected it, while directing no coercive action for two weeks to allow surrender and regular bail.
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.
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 845 of 2025
Applicant :- Fujail Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Ahmar Malik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.
Order Date :- 19.2.2025 RPD
Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an applicant not named in the FIR but implicated via a co-accused's statement under Sections 303, 317(2), 317(4) BNS.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherRelied on¶9
2021 SCC OnLine SC 922 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Fujail Ahmad
State of U.P.
Another
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
