HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8702 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 902 of 2024, under Sections 3/5A/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 325 BNS, Police Station Kotwali Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above- mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant as the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced during investigation on the confessional statement of co-accused Sartaj Khan. It is submitted that as per the allegation in the FIR 04 cows and their progeny were being transported on a vehicle, which met with an accident, as a result of which one cow died. It is also submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and he 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. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kafil Ahmad @ Mintu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced during investigation on the confessional statement of co-accused Sartaj Khan. As per the allegation in the FIR 04 cows and their progeny were being transported on a vehicle, which met with an accident, as a result of which one cow died. Nothing is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is having no criminal history. 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, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the 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- Kafil Ahmad alias Mintu 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; NABAIL No. 8702 of 2025 2 (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 cooperate during trial and would not misuse the 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 herein. October 29, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8702 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad