Iliyas Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1054 of 2026

Iliyas Khan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Om Prakash Tiwari, Himanshu Tiwari, Vedika Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 11

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 576 of 2025 u/s 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3) and 61(2) of BNSS, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. raises preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present application on the ground that identical controversy has already been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.18081 of 2024 and submits that in case, a person was not arrested during the course of investigation, and charge sheet was submitted and thereafter, summons were issued by the competent court, then accused has to appear before the competent court, and furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the court. It is, thus, submitted that present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.18081 of 2024 is reads as under :-

¶15

"The petitioner herein has been denied anticipatory bail by the High Court of

¶16

NABAIL No. 1054 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

Judicature at Allahabad in connection with case Crime No.320/2020, which has now with the filing of the charge sheet culminated in Sessions Case No. 941/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988").

¶19

2. a First It appears from the materials record that on Information Report came to be lodged at the Kotwali Police Station, district Barabanki for the offence enumerated above. It is the case of the prosecution that the check period between 2002 and 31-5-2009 revealed that the petitioner herein had assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs.1,50, 41,908/- to the known sources of his income.

¶20

3. In such circumstances, the Anti Corruption Department, Ayodhya, Faizabad, U.P. decided to proceed against the petitioner.

¶21

4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Akshat Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶22

5. We take notice of the fact that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed in the CBI Court at Gorakhpur.

¶23

6. While the investigation was in progress, the Investigating Officer did not deem fit to arrest the petitioner herein.

¶24

7. The CBI Court has taken cognizance and has issued summons to the petitioner herein to appear.

¶25

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the chargesheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense.

¶26

9. We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶27

10. If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the Now there is no point in making a formal investigation itself. arrest.

¶28

11. In such circumstances, referred to above, we order that the petitioner herein shall appear before the CBI Court, Gorakhpur and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶29

12. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

¶30

13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of."

¶31

NABAIL No. 1054 of 2026

¶32

3

¶33

Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage prays that present application may also be disposed of in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Alam (supra) .

¶34

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the judgment of Musheer Alam (supra) , present application is disposed of with the liberty to the applicant to appear before the court below and furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of court concerned.

¶35

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶36

June 8, 2026 GauraV/-

¶37

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Iliyas Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iliyas Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Ashutosh Tiwari @ Ankit Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tushar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ataullah Shah vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and

Ashok vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rakesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Virendra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.