Mohd. Faiz vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0014 of 2025 under Sections 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and 61(1) BNS, Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced after seven months of lodging of the FIR on some confidential information. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, one bull is said to have been recovered from the possession of co-accused Ajay Kumar who has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court. It is also submitted that applicant is having criminal history of 11 cases which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. 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 and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that name of the applicant has surfaced on

¶14

NABAIL No. 9353 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

the basis of some confidential information, thereafter some independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case and applicant is a habitual offender who is not co-operating in the investigation. He also submits that applicant has criminal history of various cases.

¶17

In reply to the above, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate in the trial/investigation.

¶18

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

¶19

Applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced after seven months of lodging of the FIR on some confidential information. As per the FIR, one bull is said to have been recovered from the possession of co-accused Ajay Kumar who has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court. Applicant is having criminal history of 11 cases which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶23

In the event of arrest of the applicant Mohd. Faiz 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

¶24

NABAIL No. 9353 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

conditions :-

¶27

(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;

¶28

(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;

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶33

December 10, 2025 Madhurima

¶34

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

Mohd. Faiz v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Faiz v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Chandra Prakash vs State of U.P.

Atul and Another vs State of U.P.

Pawan 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

Lilu vs State of U.P.