HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9301 of 2026 Court No. - 43 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. Heard Sri Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the applicants; learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. The second anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Usman, Farhan @ Monu and Nauman, with a prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506. 307, 34 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were granted protection till the submission of the police report vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3228 of 2021. As yet, only summons/bail warrants have been issued against them. They were working in Delhi and could not know about the charge-sheet having been submitted against them. Applicant no. 1, Usman, has a criminal history of two cases to his credit, as per the learned A.G.A. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shahabuddin, Zia Uddin Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Usman And And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Regarding Applicant no.1, Usman:- After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to applicant no.1, Usman since he has criminal history of two cases to his credit. This application is, accordingly, rejected qua applicant no.1, Usman. However, on the request of learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case applicant no.1 appears before the court below within 60 days from today and applying for regular bail, his bail application shall be considered as per judgement and order of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022. For a period of 60 days, the applicant no.1 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case, if not already arrested. However, in case, the applicant no.1 does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. It is made clear that the applicant no.1 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above. Regarding applicant nos. 2 & 3, namely, Farhan @ Monu and Nauman:- After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant nos.2 & 3. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National NABAIL No. 9301 of 2026 2 Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant nos.2 & 3, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant nos.2 & 3 shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. In the event of arrest, the applicant nos.2 & 3 shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant nos.2 & 3 involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:- 1. The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court. 2. The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court. 3. That the applicant nos.2 & 3 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; 4. The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall file an undertaking to the effect that they NABAIL No. 9301 of 2026 3 shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant. 5. In case, the applicant nos.2 & 3 misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. 6. The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. September 11, 2026 Ruchi Agrahari NABAIL No. 9301 of 2026 4 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad