HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3997 of 2026 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B, 336, 427, 504, 295A, 124A IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Aligarh. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed against one Chuiyya Ansari, while applicant is actually Mohd. Fareed Ansari. Although an application has also been moved on behalf of accused-applicant before learned C.J.M. Court, Aligarh clarifying the fact that charge sheet has been submitted against some Chuiyya Ansari S/o Masoom Ali and his name is Mohd. Fareed Ansari S/o Masoom Ali but the police officials are regularly visiting the house of Mohd. Fareed Ansari and harassing him and concerned police official also submitted police report on 05.01.2004 that no person with the name of Chuiyya Ansari is residing in Mohalla Parkatan. From the police report dated 27.10.2024, it is also evident that on the application of the applicant, the police personnel visited the area of the applicant, where he got to know from neighbours that no person namely Chuyya Ansari is residing in the Mohalla Parkatan. It it also submitted that the case diary dated 23.06.2002 shows that along with the applicant, Saleem Ansari (S/o Kaleem), Samad, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Najam Uz Zaman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Chuiyya Ansari @ Mohd Fareed Ansari .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Saleem (S/o Tammi) and Bittu were also named as accused but they were acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 26.10.2007 in S.S.T. No. 204/2006. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Asha Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024 decided on 12.11.2024 (paras 5, 8 and 10). It is next submitted that applicant is having apprehension of arrest by the police any time in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation/trial. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 5. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 6. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the trial. 7. The application is allowed accordingly. 8. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Chuiyya Ansari @ Mohd NABAIL No. 3997 of 2026 2 Fareed Ansari shall be released on anticipatory bail till the end of trial on 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 make himself/herself available before the Investigating Officer/Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the investigation/trial. (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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he/she has passport, the same shall be deposited by him/her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned. 9. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. 10. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, strictly as per the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. on day-to-day basis without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment. May 12, 2026 KK Patel NABAIL No. 3997 of 2026 3 (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad