Sajid vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3768 of 2026

Sajid		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Ansar Ahmad, Mohd Akram G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 71

¶5

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶6

Sri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant hands up the supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal history of the accusedapplicant. The same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Ahmad, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 454 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 336, 332, 323, 353, 504, 506 IPC and 31(A) Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 3 Public Property Damages Act, P.S.- Sikandraraou, District- Hathras.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that the accused-applicant has been named in the F.I.R. dated 10.07.2016 lodged by the police, wherein the two factions of the village have entered into cross fight. They have pelted stones on each other, threw bottles and also fired at each other. Both the parties suffered injuries. Even the police personnel, who came at the incident also suffered injuries. During investigation, the accused-applicant has not been arrested. The accused has one case criminal history, wherein he is on bail. The charge sheet is submitted in the year 2017. The applicant was never served with summons, bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant. He wants to appear before the trial court, but apprehending arrest and hence, seeks

¶10

NABAIL No. 3768 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

anticipatory bail.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

This Court while considering that the accused-applicant has not been arrested during the investigation and further 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.

¶16

The applicant- Sajid involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 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 :-

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

NABAIL No. 3768 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

witnesses.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶28

May 5, 2026 Shivangi

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sajid v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid 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

Sajid @ Bhoora vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Ahamad vs State of U.P.

Anup vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rahul Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Gaur and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Firoju @ Firojudin vs State of U.P.