KALEEM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS SECY. HOME DEPTT. AND ANOTHER
NABAIL/282/2025 · 2025-04-02
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131187 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131187 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18447 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 282 of 2025 Applicant :- Kaleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party No.1. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No.2 stands dispensed with. 2. The instant first anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant- Kaleem, in Case Crime No.18 of 2025, under Sections 5(a), 8, 11(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station- Gurubaksh Ganj, District- Raebareli, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. As per contents of the F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place on 21.01.2025 when during the course of patrolling, the police party chanced upon a DCM Container bearing No.UP33BT3225 with live cattle. It has been indicated that upon approaching the said vehicle, the persons traveling therein fled the scene. 4. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him, as would be evident from the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons and the applicant has been apprehended after 9 days of the incident only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused. It is submitted that there is no recovery of any cattle or any beef from the person of the applicant whose previous criminal history has already been explained in paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. 5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the anticipatory bail application with the submission that the name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation on the confessional statement of co-accused. 6.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to further evidence being collected during investigation, it appears that the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons and applicant has been apprehended after 9 days of the incident without any recovery from his person; the involvement of the applicant is also alleged at the instance of confessional statement of the co-accused; previous criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. 7. Thus, having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Nathu Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021, protection from arrest for limited period of time i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the applicant. 8. In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Kaleem is finally disposed of with a direction that till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the event of arrest of applicant in the above- mentioned case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required; (2) 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 them from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer; (3) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.
9. In case of default of any condition the investigating officer may approach this Court for cancellation/modification of this
order.
Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench