Majid vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10683 of 2025

Majid .....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arpan Kumar Pandey, Shishir Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

Heard Shri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri 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.164 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 109 of B.N.S., Police Station Airport, District Prayagraj, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the specific role of assault has been assigned to the applicant and the injured Afan is said to have received injuries on his right arm and knee. It is also submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of 11 cases registered against him, the applicant is on bail in five cases and in two cases final report has been submitted and in four cases relates to the offences under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C., in which, he has not been served with notice. 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.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for

¶10

NABAIL No. 10683 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

anticipatory bail and it has been submitted by him that the applicant and co-accused is said to have opened fire on the first informant, as a result of which, the injured Afan is said to have received injury on his right arm and knee. It is further submitted that the applicant is having long criminal history.

¶13

The applicant has been assigned the specific role of assault by firearm, which is said to be hit the injured Afan on his right arm. It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history, which has been explained in paragraph 23 of the memo of application.

¶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 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.

¶15

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Majid involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 :-

¶18

(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;

¶19

(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

¶20

NABAIL No. 10683 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

police officer;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

January 14, 2026 RKM

¶28

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

Majid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majid 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

Anil Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Kunal Yadav vs State of U.P.

Babli Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Danish Alias Alex and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Sikander vs State of U.P.