Ifran vs State of U.P.

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 2744 of 2003, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Galshaheed, District Moradabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶11

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. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged in the year 2003 but the proceedings of the case were stayed by this Court. It is submitted that stay order was vacated in the year 2017 and the applicant was not in the knowledge of the fact that the proceedings of the case have been re-started. It is submitted that the matter relates to some commercial transaction and the matter has been compromised outside the court and copy of the settlement has been filed as annexure 3 to the memo of application. 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.

¶12

NABAIL No. 8725 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and has submitted that process of proclamation under Section 82/83 CrPC has been initiated against the applicant on 22.7.2025.

¶15

5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed anticipatory bail application before the trial Court, which has been rejected on 29.8.2025 and also the facts of the case is to be seen and process of proclamation is not an absolute bar in granting anticipatory bail in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Dubey vs. State of M.P. , 2024 (4) Crimes 449.

¶16

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

¶17

7. In the present case, chargesheet has already been submitted and the proceedings of the case was stayed by this Court and the stay was vacated and now the matter is said to have been compromised between the parties outside the Court and copy of the compromise has been filed along with memo of application.

¶18

8. 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.

¶19

9. 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.

¶20

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Irfan involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a

¶22

NABAIL No. 8725 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

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 :-

¶25

(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;

¶26

(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;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

12. 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.

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶31

October 31, 2025

¶32

Abhishek

¶33

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

Ifran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ifran 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

Lal Babu Yadav vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Pradeep Alias Petha Alias Naresh vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Puri vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shambhu Singh vs State of U.P.

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

Mohit Mishra vs State of U.P.