Sahil vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 78 of 2025 under Sections 109(1), 352, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has not been assigned the role of assault. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation against co-accuse Shadab that he opened fire on the first informant which resulted in fire arm injury on his upper arm but the said injury is found to be simple in nature. It is also submitted that FIR has been lodged after delay of two days and the Investigating Officer himself has expressed his opinion which is annexed at page 55 of the memo of application that the incident appears to be doubtful. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he 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.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and he submits that applicant committed the offence

¶12

NABAIL No. 9557 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

intentionally and investigation of the case is still under progress.

¶15

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

¶16

Applicant has not been assigned the role of assault and specific allegation of assault has been attributed to co-accused Shadab that he opened fire on the first informant which resulted in fire arm injury on his upper arm but the said injury is not dangerous to life. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant Sahil 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 :-

¶21

(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;

¶22

(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

¶23

NABAIL No. 9557 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

police officer;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

November 26, 2025

¶31

Madhurima

¶32

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

Sahil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil 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

Mohit Mishra vs State of U.P.

Shamshad vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra vs State of U.P.

Deepak Singhal vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Irshad vs State of U.P.