HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9224 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 311 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 308, 504 of I.P.C., P.S. Firozabad South, District Firozabad, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest the applicant. As per X-ray report of injured, four persons Kamil, Akram, Riyaz and Tasleem sustained injuries on their person. There is no supplementary medical report of the aforesaid injured to show that their injuries are grievous in nature or dangerous to life. In the absence of supplementary medical report, injuries shall be presumed to be simple in nature. No person had sustained fracture in the incident. It is further submitted that the applicant was not arrested during course of investigation since the offences were punishable below seven years of imprisonment. The chargesheet had already been submitted in the present case on 03.06.2019 and the learned court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence vide order dated 24.07.2020. Non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant without service of summons. It is further submitted that there is no legal bar that the anticipatory bail cannot be granted if non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant. In support of his submissions, learned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilendra Yadav, Animesh Shukla, Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sahbaz @ Mohd Shahbaj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) counsel for the applicant relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5633. 4. It is further submitted that since the chargesheet had already been submitted, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. General and vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused in the F.I.R. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is further contended that co-accused Abdul Salam Farooqi Advocate has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2026 in NABAIL No.6973 of 2026. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required by the court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the trial, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the court. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 6. I have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. 8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall NABAIL No. 9224 of 2026 2 not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non- bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." 9. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter. 10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant- Sahbaz @ Mohd Shahbaj, involved in aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial. (iii) 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; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of NABAIL No. 9224 of 2026 3 the Court. 11. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned court. (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) September 29, 2026 Radhika NABAIL No. 9224 of 2026 4 Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad