HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9371 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, the Learned counsel for the informant, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0369 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) B.N.S., P.S.- Pakwara, District- Moradabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the primary allegations against the applicant are of introducing the informant to the co-accused Imran. There is no direct allegation against the applicant other than the said allegation. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant had filed a writ petition before this Court being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2026, which was disposed of by this Court vide the order dated 23.03.2026 with a direction that the application for bail of the applicant would be considered and disposed of in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773. The Learned counsel for the applicant states that a charge sheet has not yet been filed and as such, apprehending his arrest he has moved the anticipatory bail application. 4. The Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has contended that the applicant and the co- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Kumar, Ram Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd. Aslam Khan, Mohd. Mateen Khan Shamim Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) accused promised employment to the informant as a District Representative of Imran Khan, Member of the FCI Consultative Committee, Government of India. The fake appointment letter was handed over by the applicant himself along with the co-accused Shabir and Fatehuddin Khan. The applicant and the other accused have taken Rs. 4,60,000/- in cash and Rs. 40,000/- has been deposited through bank transfer in the accounts of Shabir and Fatehuddin Khan. The offence of the applicant and the other accused is quite grave and they have cheated the informant, who is a poor man out of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 5. Learned A.G.A. has supported the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the informant but has not been able to point out any criminal antecedents of the applicant. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 7. In the opinion of the Court, paying money to secure employment shows the dishonest and unlawful means adopted by the informant to obtain employment. The money that has supposedly been given to the applicant is said to have been given in cash and there is no bank transfer to the applicant. In the opinion of the Court taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Shamim Ahmad, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount 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 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 NABAIL No. 9371 of 2026 2 of the Court; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 11. 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 24, 2026 Sachin NABAIL No. 9371 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad