Suhaib Ui Islam vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9480 of 2025

Suhaib Ui Islam	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ahamad Farhan, Haya Rizvi : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 376 of 2020 under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused Uvesh @ Mohd. Uveh UI Islam and Smt. Dilshad Begam have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.8.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.6743 of 2025. It was also submitted that initially, chargesheet was submitted under sections 420 and 406 IPC which was quashed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.4.2025 passed in Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 43934 of 2024 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate. 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.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

NABAIL No. 9480 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

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

¶13

There is allegation of criminal breach of trust committed by the applicant of an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-. The applicant has been summoned to face trial under section 406 IPC and maximum punishment which can be imposed upon conviction is imprisonment below seven years. Co-accused Uvesh @ Mohd. Uveh UI Islam and Smt. Dilshad Begam have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant Suhaib Ui Islam 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

¶20

NABAIL No. 9480 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶23

(iii) The applicant would co-operate 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

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.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

November 17, 2025 Madhurima

¶28

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

Suhaib Ui Islam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhaib Ui Islam 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

Indu and Another 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

Divyam vs State of U.P.

Sahab Lal @ Daya Saroj vs State of U.P.

Yamin vs State of U.P.