HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10338 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on the record. 2. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.537 of 2026, under Sections 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S.- Bhojipura, District- Bareilly, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-mentioned case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons on the discovery of some animal remains. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation in the statement of the police informer. There is no other admissible evidence against the applicant. The applicant has a criminal history of one case in which the applicant had applied for surrender before the concerned Court and the report of the police station is that he is not wanted in the said case. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the case of the applicant stands on a similar footing to that of the co-accused Imtiyaz, Aziz-Ur-Rahman and Khaleel @ Abdul Khaleek, who have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS Nos.8399 of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Majid Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Guddu @ Guddu Khan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 2026, 8447 of 2026 and 8538 of 2026. 4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has submitted that the remains recovered were subsequently confirmed, as per the FSL report, to be those of a cow or its progeny. The name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation and he may be required for custodial interrogation and further recoveries. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 6. The criminal history of the applicant has been satisfactorily explained. He is said to have been implicated in the present case on the basis of information received from a police informer. There is no other tangible evidence available against the applicant. The case of the applicant stands on a similar footing to the that of the co-accused Imtiyaz, Aziz-Ur- Rahman and Khaleel @ Abdul Khaleek, who have been granted anticipatory bail. 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 applicant on anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Guddu @ Guddu Khan, he 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 applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; NABAIL No. 10338 of 2026 2 iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. that the applicant 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. October 1, 2026 A. Pandey NABAIL No. 10338 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad