Disposed

Mohmmad Yasir Arfat Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025NABAIL/8460/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a POCSO and assault charges case in which chargesheet was filed in 2022 but summons and warrants were issued without him receiving them. Counsel cited precedents on section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation and anticipatory bail entitlement. Court granted interim anticipatory bail till 6 November 2025 with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail till 6.11.2025 on furnishing personal bond Rs. 50,000 plus two sureties each of like amount, with four conditions.

Mohmmad Yasir Arfat Khan vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8460 of 2025

¶3

Mohmmad Yasir Arfat Khan		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Rajeev Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

Sri Rajat Aren and Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel have filed vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Tripathi and Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajat Aren, learned counsel for the first informant through video conferencing and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 41 of 2021 under Sections 323, 352 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that initially, the FIR was lodged under sections 377, 511 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act but chargesheet has been filed only under section 7/8 PCOSO Act and 323, 352 IPC. It is further contended that chargesheet in the case has already been submitted in the year 2022, however, the applicant has not received any summon and bailable warrant, non bailable warrant and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. have been issued against him. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 21.10.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2090 of 2024 Ankur Agarwal vs. State of U.P. in which, various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court have been considered and a detailed order has been

¶10

NABAIL No. 8460 of 2025

¶11

¶12

passed considering the effect of issuance of proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. on the maintainability and entitlement of anticipatory bail. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024 Asha Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh . It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant submits that he needs some time to go through the case and prepare his argument.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. also submits that he is yet to receive instructions in the matter.

¶15

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶17

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits, let the applicant Mohmmad Yasir Arfat Khan , in the event of his arrest, be released on interim anticipatory bail 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 till 6th November, 2025 with the following conditions :-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶19

NABAIL No. 8460 of 2025

¶20

¶21

(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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶24

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶25

Put up this case as fresh on 06.11.2025.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

October 16, 2025 Madhurima

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohmmad Yasir Arfat Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohmmad Yasir Arfat Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devanand Sharma @ Pancham @ Dewa vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian / Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Imran vs State of U.P. and Another

Alok Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Alamgeer vs U.O.I. Thru. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow

Sushil Alias Ramesh Alias Sonu Pathak vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others