HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9596 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicants, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.69 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 132, 121(1), 221, 61(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., P.S. - Pipri, District- Kaushambi, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicants are not named in the FIR. The FIR was lodged against five named accused persons and about twelve unknown persons. During the investigation, accused Shivam Singh and Afgan, on the basis of statement of witnesses recorded, were taken out of the investigation and their involvement was found to be false. Learned counsel has submitted that the names of the applicants have crept in on viewing the CCTV footage and on identification by some persons whose names have not been specifically disclosed. Learned counsel for the applicants has also contended that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. None of the injuries received by the two injured have been opined to be dangerous to life or grievous in nature. The applicant No. 1 has a criminal history of one case in which he has been acquitted and the applicant No. 2 has a criminal history of one case in which he is on bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but does not dispute the explanation given by the applicants regarding Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mazhar Ullah, Md Faiz Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd Iqbal And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) their criminal antecedents. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 6. The applicants are not named in the FIR. The names of the applicants have surfaced when the CCTV footage was shown by the police to some persons whose names have not been disclosed in the case diary and no specific role appears to have been disclosed on perusal of the CCTV footage. Learned counsel for the applicants relying upon paragraph No.20 of the affidavit has stated that they were passersby who had stopped at the petrol pump in question for refueling when the CCTV footage captured his presence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicants are neither the employee nor the owner of the petrol pump in question. The vehicles that were supposedly carrying illegally excavated sand do not belong to the applicants. Taking note of the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties and also the fact that no specific role or act has been attributed to the applicants in the CCTV footage, prima facie a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. 9. In the event of the arrest of the applicants Mohammad Iqbal and Haseen Ahmad, they shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:- i. the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that the applicants 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; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous NABAIL No. 9596 of 2026 2 permission of the Court; iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case. September 30, 2026 Sachin NABAIL No. 9596 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad