HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8057 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.282 of 2025 under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and section 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Mundhapandey, District Moradabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name of the applicant surfaced during investigation in the confessional statements of three co-accused persons namely Chhote, Ashraf and Saddam. It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of three cases which has been duly explained in para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. 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 the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ibraheem Ali .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) obey all conditions of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant has criminal history of three cases. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that FIR has been lodged against unknown persons and as per the FIR, it is alleged that mortal remains of some cows like skull and head were recovered by the police and the FIR was lodged agaisnt unknown persons. During Investigation, three accused persons were arrested namely Chhote, Ashraf and Saddam and the name of the applicant has surfaced in their confessional statements. The applicant is having criminal history of three cases which has been duly explained in para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. 8. 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 also evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 9. 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. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant Ibraheem Ali 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 NABAIL No. 8057 of 2025 2 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 liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 12. 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 7, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 8057 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad