Mohammad Nazim Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2102 of 2026

Mohammad Nazim

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anand Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 71

¶8

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Learned AGA for the State.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has hands up the supplementary affidavit annexing criminal history, the same is taken on record.

¶11

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 52 of 2021, under Sections 3/5Ka/5Kha/8 of Cow Slaughter and Prevention Act, 1955 and Section 427 and 307 IPC, P.S. Saini, District Kaushambi during pendency of the trial.

¶12

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR is lodged by the police against four persons on 18.02.2021. The allegation in the FIR is seizing of truck with 19 cattles, out of which one found dead. The applicant was not arrested from the place of incident. It is from the statement of co-accused, the name of accused/applicant has come into picture. The applicant has sought anticipatory bail before this Court. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 CrPc No. 7771 of 2021 (Najim Vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 15.03.2021 has granted anticipatory bail till the cognizance is taken by the Magistrate. After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance is taken but the applicant appeared and moved anticipatory bail before the sessions court, which was rejected. There is one case of criminal history, which is of Gangster Act, wherein the present case is made the base case. He is on bail in the gangster case. The applicant want to appear before the trial court to face the trial but apprehending arrest. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

NABAIL No. 2102 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶16

The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 , wherein it is consistently held by Hon'ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

¶17

Considering that the accused/applicant has not been arrested during investigation. Further this Court, while considering the gravity of accusation, explained criminal history and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant-Mohammad Nazim involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer as the case may be within thirty days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions :-

¶19

(i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date

¶24

NABAIL No. 2102 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶28

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶29

May 5, 2026 Abhishek Sri.

¶30

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Nazim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Nazim 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sahjad Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Lko. and Another

Suresh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Chhatrpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mahaveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ompal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Dubey Vs State of U.P.