Saanuullah vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8798 of 2025

¶3

Saanuullah

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deeksha Gupta, Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 72

¶7

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Chandra Shekhar Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.48 of 2004, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 411 of I.P.C., Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and as per law laid-down in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248 and pointed out that both the offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC can not be applied simultaneously, as they both are antithetical to each other. It is further submitted that the applicant had moved this Court and this Court had granted interim relief to the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant would cooperate in the trial 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.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for

¶12

NABAIL No. 8798 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

anticipatory bail and it has been submitted by him that the applicant is not cooperating in the trial.

¶15

As per first information report, 33 bags of wheat and four bags of rice were recovered from a vehicle, which was being taken away by the applicant for selling it in the open market for higher price and whereas foodgrains were meant for sale on subsidized rates to the eligible persons under the public distribution system.

¶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, 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.

¶17

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Saanuullah involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 :-

¶20

(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;

¶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

NABAIL No. 8798 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

November 6, 2025 RKM

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saanuullah v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saanuullah v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Rajeev Alias Raju and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Dayal vs State of U.P.

Sunny Chauhan Alias Sunny Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjali Kumari vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir vs State of U.P.

Tanuj Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P.