HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9681 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.203 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 61(2)(B), 115(2), 351(3), 338, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is sought to be arrested by the police for a dispute which is primarily civil in nature relating to property. Similarly situated co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail till filing of a police report in NABAIL No.7424 of 2026. The case of the applicant stands on a similar footing. The applicant has criminal history of two cases. In one case the applicant has been acquitted and in the other case the applicant is on bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has contended that the offences in question are not punishable with more than seven years in the event of conviction and the applicant has no apprehension of arrest as his interest is protected by Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. and the directions given by the Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr. 2014 (8) SCC 273, Mohd. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Farid Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Savez Khan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. (2023) 8 SCC 63 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 INSC 115. 5. Rejoining the issue, Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that during investigation Section 338 B.N.S. has been added, which entails, in the event of conviction, punishment of life imprisonment. He has further stated that co-accused Adnan and Mujiyan have been arrested by the police. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties. 7. Co-accused Mohd. Ahamad @ Sonu has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court till filing of a police report. The case of the applicant stands at par with that of the co-accused. There appears to be a property dispute between the parties and rival claims are being set up. The criminal antecedents of the applicant have been properly explained and in the opinion of the Court, the applicant is not likely to indulge in any such offence in the near future. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail till filing of police report. 9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 10. Till filing of the police report, in the event of the arrest of the applicant-Savez Khan, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety 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 NABAIL No. 9681 of 2026 2 to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 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; 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 12. 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. September 17, 2026 A. Pandey NABAIL No. 9681 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad