Allowed

Mohammad Irshad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025NABAIL/9558/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in an assault FIR under BNS sections where grievous head injury occurred but no specific role was attributed to the applicant, who had no criminal history. Court relied on Mhetre's factors and granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on arrest upon furnishing personal bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions on evidence tampering, co-operation, and not leaving India with

Mohammad Irshad vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9558 of 2025

¶3

Mohammad Irshad		...	..Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Manish Kumar Singh	Kashyap,	Virendra Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

Heard Sri V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, 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. 98 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 131, 110 of B.N.S., Police Station Mansurpur, District Muzaffarnagar 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 no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against him. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, five persons including the applicant are said to have assaulted the first informant side as a result of which, one person is said to have received grievous injury on his head. It is further submitted that even the injured has not assigned any specific role to the applicant. 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.

¶9

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

¶10

NABAIL No. 9558 of 2025

¶11

¶12

anticipatory bail.

¶13

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

¶14

As per the FIR, applicant and other co-accused persons are said to have assaulted the first informant side as a result of which, one person is said to have received fracture on his head which is grievous in nature. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant who has no criminal history to his credit

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant Mohammad Irshad 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 :-

¶19

(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;

¶20

(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

¶21

NABAIL No. 9558 of 2025

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶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

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

November 26, 2025

¶29

Madhurima

¶30

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

Mohammad Irshad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Irshad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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.

Sahil vs State of U.P.

Deepak Singhal vs State of U.P. and Another