Yamin vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8557 of 2025

Yamin	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rizwan Ahmad, Seema Wahid
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 416 of 2025 under Sections 3/5A/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR was lodged against unknown and name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of one Qayyum who was arrested in connection of some other case. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Mohnish and Moeen have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8476 of 2025 and co-accused Mohd. Arbaz has also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.07.11.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8836 of 2025. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate 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.

¶9

NABAIL No. 8557 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

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

¶13

FIR has been lodged against unknown persons as per which, mortal remains of some slaughtered cows have been found. Name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of one Qayyum who was arrested in connection of some other case. Co-accused Mohnish, Moeen and Mohd. Arbaz have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide and applicant has no criminal history to his credit.

¶14

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.

¶15

Considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant Yamin involved in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court concerned, 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

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement,

¶20

NABAIL No. 8557 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

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;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

November 17, 2025 Madhurima

¶28

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

Yamin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yamin v. State of U.P.

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

Indu and Another vs State of U.P.

Faizan vs State of U.P.

Indraraj Singh Alias Indal Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Divyam vs State of U.P.

Sahab Lal @ Daya Saroj vs State of U.P.

Suhaib Ui Islam vs State of U.P.