HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9991 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of 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.364 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 340(2), 336, 338 B.N.S., Police Station- Deoband, District-Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case. 3. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant had been moved along with the co-accused Amzad, but as the learned A.G.A. had pointed out criminal history of the applicant, which had not been explained, the application of the applicant was permitted to be withdrawn with the liberty of filing a fresh application after explaining the criminal antecedents as required under Chapter XVIII Rule 18(7) of the Rules of the Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has clearly explained his criminal antecedents of one case being Case Crime No.224 of 2020 under Sections 376(D), 377, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur, where after investigation a final report was submitted and the said final report has also been accepted by the Learned A.C.J.M., Deoband. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the applicant stands at par with that of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose), Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jubair .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the co-accused Amzad, who has been granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but does not dispute the fact that the case of the applicant stands on a similar footing to that of the co-accused Amzad. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties. 6. The applicant is stated to be a marginal witness in the disputed sale deed. The applicant claims not to have received any money with regard to the disputed transaction. The criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained and the Court is prima facie satisfied that the applicant is not likely to repeat any such crime in the near future. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail. 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-Jubair, 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 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; NABAIL No. 9991 of 2026 2 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 A. Pandey NABAIL No. 9991 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad