HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1818 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 119 of 2025 under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act Police Station Mohana, District-Siddharth Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was duly served upon them, and they have cooperated with the investigation. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Bahadur, has already been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 11.02.2026, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 1112 of 2026. Learned counsel for the applicants further submit that, as per the First Information Report, certain bags of urea were recovered from the possession of the co-accused Bahadur without any valid documents. The name of the present applicants have surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused. The applicants have merely been shown as the proprietor of the firm from which the said urea is alleged to have been recovered, and no direct recovery has been made from the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history and he undertakes to co-operate during trial and to appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The co-accused, Bahadur, has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 11.02.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1112 of 2026, and the charge sheet has also been submitted in the case. Notice Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surendra Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mulayam Singh And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) under Section 35(3) of the BNS was duly served during the course of investigation. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 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, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. Considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and 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 applicants Mulayam Singh and Mainudeen @ Irshad Ali involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on them 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence and shall appear before the trial Court either in person or through counsel on each and every date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned and shall not seek any undue adjournment; (ii) 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) The applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants. March 16, 2026 Neetu NABAIL No. 1818 of 2026 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad