Taukeer Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.54 of 2018, under Sections 9, 39, 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Police Station Ajeem Nagar, District Rampur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was served a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the applicant was never served any summon or bailable warrant and he is ready and willing to cooperate in the trial. 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.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted by him that the cognizance has been taken on 06.08.2018 and the applicant has not been cooperating in the trial.

¶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, Court must consider

¶16

NABAIL No. 1020 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

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.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Taukeer Ahmad involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till 23.03.2026 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

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

¶24

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.

¶25

List this case on 23.03.2026 as fresh at 02:00 P.M.

¶26

Applicant is directed to file certified copy of the entire order sheet of the learned trial Court.

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

February 10, 2026

¶29

RKM

¶30

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

Taukeer Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taukeer Ahmad 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nathu Verma vs State of U.P.

Taufeeq @ Tauseef vs State of U.P.

Monu vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow and Others

Anurag Singh vs State of U.P.

Umashankar and Another vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar Bajpei vs State of U.P. and Another