Saba Zaidi Vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 169 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dhaulana, District Hapur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of applicant. Her first anticipatory bail application, which was filed after submission of charge sheet, has been dismissed in default bvy this Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11860 of 2024, whereas she was granted interim protection by this Court earlier vide order dated 15.01.2025. Learned counsel submits that after grant of anticipatory bail the applicant was regularly attending the trial court and in support of his submission he placed reliance upon the order sheet of the court concerned annexed as Annexure-10 of the affidavit filed in support of the present anticipatory bail application. Thus, it has been argued that since applicant is a lady, having a child in her lap and the matter relates to civil dispute and she has no concern with the alleged incident. It has also been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and she applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and shall appear regularly before the concerned trial court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the in the proceeding of trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

The present crime relates to the year 2022. The charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant wherein clinching evidence was found. From the perusal of order sheet of the concerned trial court, it

¶12

NABAIL No. 8698 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

is evident that applicant has not appeared before the concerned trial court for about nine months. Thus, it appears that applicant is trying to linger on the proceeding of trial on one pretext or the other. Moreover, no fresh ground has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of this second anticipatory bail application.

¶15

In the 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, 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.

¶16

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 and also considering the fact that the order sheet of the concerned trial court goes to show, it is evident that applicant has not appeared before the concerned trial court for about nine months and no fresh ground has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of this second anticipatory bail application, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶18

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶19

October 30, 2025 Mustaqeem.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saba Zaidi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saba Zaidi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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