NASEEB ULLA @ NAEEM ULLA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. AND ANOTHER
NABAIL/760/2025 · 2025-07-01
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 148809 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 148809 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37079 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 760 of 2025 Applicant :- Naseeb Ulla @ Naeem Ulla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. The present bail application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 78/2025, under Sections 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Bandhuakala, District Sultanpur. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Tanvi Jain, learned A.G.A. for the State. A supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The criminal history involving five cases has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant’s name has surfaced on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Mosim, who sustained a gunshot injury in the firing of police party. No recovery has been made from the applicant's possession. Learned AGA has opposed the anticipatory bail application, arguing that co-accused Mosim was injured in police firing and certain recoveries were made from him. On the basis of those recoveries and his confessional statement, the applicant’s name has surfaced. It is contended that this is not a case of false implication, especially in view of the applicant’s criminal
antecedents of five other cases. Upon perusal of the record, and considering the fact that the applicant’s name has surfaced from the confessional statement of co-accused Mosim, who was injured in Case Crime No. 81 of 2025, wherein a recovery was also effected, it is evident that both matters are connected. Therefore, the claim of false implication is not substantiated. No ground for granting anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
Order Date :- 1.7.2025/R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench