JUNAID v. STATE OF U.P THROUGH ITS SECRETARY OF HOME, U.P. LUCKNOW
NABAIL/7809/2025 · 2025-10-08
Yogesh Dubey Joint Registrar Judicial
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 100845 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 100845 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7809 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri S.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 475 of 2025 under Sections 109 (1), 115 (2), 190, 191 (2), 191 (3), 352, 351 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. It is submitted that injured Shahazad has stated in his statement under section 180 BNSS that he was shot at by one Adnan. It is also submitted that the injured suffered injuries on his face and nose. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history. 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 and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. However, he does not dispute the fact that allegations of assault by fire-arm is on co-accused Adnan. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Shubham Prakash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Junaid .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Of Home, U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s)
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The FIR has been lodged against unknown persons and the name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation. Injured Shahazad has stated in his statement recorded under section 180 BNSS that he was shot at by one Adnan on his face and nose. The applicant has clean antecedents. 7.
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, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, 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. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant Junaid involved in the aforesaid case crime, he 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 :- (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; (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 police officer; (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the NABAIL No. 7809 of 2025 2
liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. 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.
October 9, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 7809 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad