Saifi vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8575 of 2025

Saifi	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Abhishek Tiwari, Mamta Singh : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Anoop Pandey, holding brief of Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uma Shanker Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352 and 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Airport, District Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant as no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against him. It is also submitted that two of the co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court and the applicant is having no criminal history. 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. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

¶10

NABAIL No. 8575 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

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

¶13

6. As per the allegation in the first information report, 06 named persons including the applicant and 15-16 persons have assaulted the first informant side by a sharp edged weapon and lathi, as a result of which son of the first informant Kallu received injuries on his arm. The applicant is having no criminal history and no specific role has been assigned to him.

¶14

7. 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, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶15

8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle 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 on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶16

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶17

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Saifi 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, 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

¶20

NABAIL No. 8575 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

police officer;

¶23

(iii) The applicant would cooperate 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

11. 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 herein.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

November 3, 2025

¶28

Abhishek

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saifi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saifi 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

Similar cases

Balram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar @ Lallu vs State of U.P. and Another

Ifran vs State of U.P.

Lallu Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Najeem vs State of U.P.

Guljar Anwar vs State of U.P.