Ishrat Ali and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Shri Gulshad Ali along with Shri Syed Ahmed Faizan, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.1249 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 193(3), 190, 333, 324(4), 326(G), 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶12

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of them. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after delay of three months. It was also submitted that applicants undertake 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, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted by him that the criminal history of the applicants have not been properly explained.

¶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, Court must consider nature and

¶15

NABAIL No. 10499 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

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.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicants - Ishrat Ali and Sahil involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till 29.01.2026 on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶20

(ii) The applicants 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;

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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 applicants.

¶24

List this case on 29.01.2026 as fresh in top twenty cases.

¶25

The applicants are directed to file fresh supplementary affidavit explaining their entire criminal history by the next date.

¶26

January 9, 2026 RKM

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

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

Ishrat Ali and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishrat Ali and Another 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

Similar cases

Bhure Alias Ramaautar vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Home Secretary and Another

Danish Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Alha @ Shiv Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Yameen and Another vs State of U.P.

Deepak Singhal vs State of U.P. and Another