# Nafees Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1662
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 B.N.S.S. No. 487 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nafees-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53321
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law-The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023-Section
482---
Application seeking anticipatory bail in Case
5 All. Nafees Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1663
Crime No.34 of 2025 under Sections 110,
191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3),
109, 103(1), 118(1) of B.N.S.--- That a coaccused person was taken into custody and he
has been enlarged on regular bail, does not
affect the right of the applicant to seek
anticipatory bail and he cannot be compelled to
first surrender to custody and thereafter apply
for his release on bail--- The deceased died two
months and eighteen days after the incident and
the cause of death has been opined to be
cardiopulmonary arrest due to chronic lung
disease; that the applicant is a 55 years old
person and the person against whom the
allegation of making assault with an axe has
been levelled has already been granted bail by
the Session Court whereas the allegation
against the applicant is of exhortation only and
the other persons have received simple injuries-
-- Applicant is entitled to be granted on
anticipatory bail.

Application allowed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

## Text

1662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the District Judge or the designated judicial
officer so as to reckon their appointment as
persona designata. The thrust of Section
9(1) is to provide for remedy of an appeal
against the order of the Estate Officer
before the District Judge who, undeniably,
is a pre-existing authority and head of the
judiciary within the district, discharging
judicial power of the State including power
to condone the delay in filing of the appeal
and to grant interim relief during the
pendency of the appeal. Though described
as an Appellate Officer, the District Judge,
for deciding an appeal under Section 9, can
and is expected to exercise the powers of
the civil court.

***

59. Reverting to the facts of the
present case, the respondents had resorted
to
remedy
of
writ
petition
under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. In view of our conclusion that the
order passed by the District Judge (in this
case, Judge, the Bombay City Civil Court
at Mumbai) as an Appellate Officer is an
order
of
the
subordinate
court,
the
challenge thereto must ordinarily proceed
only under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India and not under Article 226.***"

(emphasis supplied)"

18. Upon due consideration of the
aforesaid including the expression "Court
having jurisdiction to try an offence under
this Act" in Section 16 of the Act of 1986,
this Court is of the firm view that the 'Court'
while exercising the power under Section 16
of the Act of 1986, related to the matters
connected with Sections 14 and 15 of the Act
of 1986, being an authority under the Act of
1986, would be inferior Criminal Court in
relation to High Court. Therefore, the
application for expeditious disposal of the
proceedings under Section 16 of the Act of
1986 would be maintainable under Section
483 Cr.P.C. (now repealed) or Section 529
BNSS, as the case may be.

19. Having held as above, after
considering the period of pendency of the
case(s) and also the right to enjoy the
property available to the concerned, the
application(s)
under
consideration
are
disposed of with a direction to the concerned
Court(s), indicated in prayer(s), quoted
above, to conclude the proceedings of the
case(s) most expeditiously, if already not
concluded.

20. The Court records the valuable
assistance given by Ms. Urmish Shankar,
Research Associate, attached with me in
drafting this judgment and finding out case
laws applicable in the present case.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1662
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
482 B.N.S.S. No. 487 of 2025

Nafees Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Brijesh Kumar Yadav , Bal Keshwar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A

Criminal
Law-The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023-Section
482---
Application seeking anticipatory bail in Case
5 All. Nafees Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1663
Crime No.34 of 2025 under Sections 110,
191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3),
109, 103(1), 118(1) of B.N.S.--- That a coaccused person was taken into custody and he
has been enlarged on regular bail, does not
affect the right of the applicant to seek
anticipatory bail and he cannot be compelled to
first surrender to custody and thereafter apply
for his release on bail--- The deceased died two
months and eighteen days after the incident and
the cause of death has been opined to be
cardiopulmonary arrest due to chronic lung
disease; that the applicant is a 55 years old
person and the person against whom the
allegation of making assault with an axe has
been levelled has already been granted bail by
the Session Court whereas the allegation
against the applicant is of exhortation only and
the other persons have received simple injuries-
-- Applicant is entitled to be granted on
anticipatory bail.

Application allowed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51

2. Sushila Aggrawal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2020
(5) SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Bal Keshwar Srivastava
and Shri Trideep Narayan Pandey, the
learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Alok Kumar Tiwari, the AGA for the State.

2. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory
bail in Case Crime No.34 of 2025 under
Sections 110, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352,
351(2), 351(3), 109, 103(1), 118(1) of
B.N.S.
registered
at
Police
Station-
Kudwar, District- Sultanpur.

3. The learned AGA has raised a
preliminary objection that a co-accused
person has been granted a regular bail by
the Session Judge and, therefore, the
applicant should also file an application for
regular bail.

4.
Replying
to
the
aforesaid
preliminary objection, the learned counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance upon
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Satender Kumar
Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation
& Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Sushila
Aggrawal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020
(5) SCC 1.

5. In Satender Kumar Antil (Supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :-

"93. The rate of conviction in
criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It
appears to us that this factor weighs on the
mind of the Court while deciding the bail
applications in a negative sense. Courts
tend to think that the possibility of a
conviction being nearer to rarity, bail
applications will have to be decided
strictly, contrary to legal principles. We
cannot mix up consideration of a bail
application, which is not punitive in nature
with that of a possible adjudication by way
of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate
acquittal with continued custody would be
a case of grave injustice.

94. Criminal courts in general
with the trial court in particular are the
guardian angels of liberty. Liberty, as
embedded in the Code, has to be preserved,
protected, and enforced by the criminal
courts. Any conscious failure by the
criminal courts would constitute an affront
to liberty. It is the pious duty of the
criminal court to zealously guard and keep
a consistent vision in safeguarding the
constitutional values and ethos. A criminal
1664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court must uphold the constitutional thrust
with responsibility mandated on them by
acting akin to a high priest.

95.
This
Court
in
Arnab
Manoranjan
Goswami
v.
State
of
Maharashtra
[Arnab
Manoranjan
Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2
SCC 427 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 834] , has
observed that : (SCC pp. 471-72, para 67)

"67. Human liberty is a precious
constitutional value, which is undoubtedly
subject to regulation by validly enacted
legislation. As such, the citizen is subject to
the edicts of criminal law and procedure.
Section 482 recognises the inherent power
of the High Court to make such orders as
are necessary to give effect to the
provisions of CrPC 'or prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice'. Decisions of this Court
require the High Courts, in exercising the
jurisdiction entrusted to them under Section
482, to act with circumspection. In
emphasising that the High Court must
exercise this power with a sense of
restraint, the decisions of this Court are
founded on the basic principle that the due
enforcement of criminal law should not be
obstructed by the accused taking recourse
to artifices and strategies. The public
interest in ensuring the due investigation of
crime is protected by ensuring that the
inherent power of the High Court is
exercised with caution. That indeed is
one-and
a
significant-end
of
the
spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is
equally important : the recognition by
Section 482 of the power inhering in the
High Court to prevent the abuse of process
or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable
safeguard for protecting liberty. The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was enacted
by a legislature which was not subject to
constitutional rights and limitations; yet it
recognised the inherent power in Section
561-A. Post-Independence, the recognition
by Parliament [ Section 482CrPC, 1973] of
the inherent power of the High Court must
be construed as an aid to preserve the
constitutional value of liberty. The writ of
liberty runs through the fabric of the
Constitution. The need to ensure the fair
investigation of crime is undoubtedly
important in itself, because it protects at
one level the rights of the victim and, at a
more fundamental level, the societal
interest
in
ensuring
that
crime
is
investigated and dealt with in accordance
with law. On the other hand, the misuse of
the criminal law is a matter of which the
High Court and the lower courts in this
country must be alive. In the present case,
the High Court could not but have been
cognizant of the specific ground which was
raised before it by the appellant that he
was being made a target as a part of a
series of occurrences which have been
taking place since April 2020. The specific
case of the appellant is that he has been
targeted because his opinions on his
television channel are unpalatable to
authority. Whether the appellant has
established a case for quashing the FIR is
something on which the High Court will
take a final view when the proceedings are
listed before it but we are clearly of the
view that in failing to make even a prima
facie evaluation of the FIR, the High Court
abdicated its constitutional duty and
function as a protector of liberty. Courts
must be alive to the need to safeguard the
public interest in ensuring that the due
enforcement of criminal law is not
obstructed. The fair investigation of crime
is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of
courts across the spectrum-the district
judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme
Court-to ensure that the criminal law
5 All. Nafees Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1665
does not become a weapon for the selective
harassment of citizens. Courts should be
alive to both ends of the spectrum-the
need to ensure the proper enforcement of
criminal law on the one hand and the need,
on the other, of ensuring that the law does
not become a ruse for targeted harassment.
Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as
tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the
vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony
of the media and in the dusty corridors of
courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law.
Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty
when one of these components is found
wanting." (emphasis supplied)

96. We wish to note the existence
of exclusive Acts in the form of Bail Acts
prevailing in the United Kingdom and
various States of USA. These Acts prescribe
adequate guidelines both for investigating
agencies and the courts. We shall now take
note of Section 4(1) of the Bail Act of 1976
pertaining to United Kingdom:

"General right to bail of accused
persons and others.-

4. (1) A person to whom this
section applies shall be granted bail except
as provided in Schedule 1 to this Act."

97. Even other than the aforesaid
provision, the enactment does take into
consideration of the principles of law
which
we
have
discussed
on
the
presumption of innocence and the grant of
bail being a matter of right.

98. Uniformity and certainty in
the decisions of the court are the
foundations
of
judicial
dispensation.
Persons accused with same offence shall
never be treated differently either by the
same court or by the same or different
courts. Such an action though by an
exercise of discretion despite being a
judicial one would be a grave affront to
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India."

6. In Sushila Aggrawal (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :-

"47. Section 438 CrPC provides
for the issuance of directions for the grant
of bail to a person apprehending arrest.
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
replaced the old Code of 1898. The old
Code
did
not
provide
for
any
corresponding provision to Section 438 of
the Code of 1973. Under the old Code,
there was a sharp difference of opinion
amongst the various High Courts on the
question as to whether courts had the
inherent power to pass an order of bail in
anticipation of arrest. The predominant
position was that courts did not have such
a power. Subsequently, the need for various
amendments to make the Code more
comprehensive resulted in the enactment of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973.
Interestingly,
Section
438
does
not
expressly use the term "anticipatory bail";
its language instead empowers the court
concerned to issue directions for grant of
bail.

48. The
Law
Commission
of
India, in its 41st Report of 1969, noted that
the necessity for granting anticipatory bail
arises mainly due to influential persons
attempting to implicate their rivals in false
cases, or disgracing them by getting them
detained in jail. The Report further noted
that apart from false cases, where there
are reasonable grounds for holding that a
person accused of an offence is not likely
to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty
while on bail, there seems to be no
justification to require him first to submit
1666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to custody, remain in prison for some days
and then apply for bail. The Report
recommended that a provision be included
for the direction to grant bail in such cases,
and that this power vests in the High
Courts and Courts of Session only. The
Report, however, did not include the
conditions for grant of anticipatory bail in
the suggested language for the provision.
Certain conditions that courts may include
were, however included in the provision
that was enacted as Section 438 CrPC,
1973." (Emphasis added)

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
I am of the considered view that the mere
fact that a co-accused person was taken into
custody and he has been enlarged on
regular bail, does not affect the right of the
applicant to seek anticipatory bail and he
cannot be compelled to first surrender to
custody and thereafter apply for his release
on bail.

8. Accordingly, I turn down the
aforesaid preliminary objection and hold
that the application for anticipatory bail is
maintainable.

9. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged
on 23.01.2025 against eight persons,
including the applicant, stating that earlier,
the
informant's
father
had
given
a
complaint against the applicant regarding
delivering lesser quantity of ration from his
fair price shop, due to which all the accused
persons kept animosity against him. While
the informant's brother was going to his
fields at about 11:30 AM on 23.01.2025,
they started abusing him. Upon his
opposition, co-accused Parvez assaulted on
his head on the exhortation of the applicant.
When a relative Gufran ran to save him, the
accused persons assaulted him also.

10. The injury form of Mohd. Nazar
prepared on 23.01.2025 mentions an
incised wound of size 6 cm X 1 cm on
middle forehead, a contusion on left
forehead and a contusion on left side lower
back. The injuries were fresh in nature
caused by a hard and sharp object. The Xray
examination
report
reveals
no
abnormality. Mohd. Nazar died during
treatment on 11.04.2025. The postmortem
examination report mentions a healing
punctured wound of tracheostomy and bed
sore over his back. The cause of death has
been mentioned as Cardiopulmonary arrest
due to chronic lung disease.

11. Mohd. Athar had suffered a
lacerated wound on left side of head, a
contusion on left forehead and complain of
pain on right thumb joint. His X-ray
examination
report
also
reveals
no
abnormality and the injuries were simple in
nature. Another person Gufran Ahmad also
received a simple injury.

12. In the affidavit filed in support of
the bail application, it has been stated that
the applicant is a 55 years old innocent
person and he has been falsely implicated
in the present case. The learned AGA has
pointed out involvement of the applicant in
another criminal case and a supplementary
affidavit has been filed stating that the
Investigation Officer has submitted a
closure report against the applicant in that
case.

13. Co-accused Parvez Khan has been
enlarged on bail by means of an order dated
25.04.2025 passed by the Session Judge,
Sultanpur.

14. The learned AGA has produced a
copy of the statement of the Doctor who has
conducted the postmortem examination of the
5 All. Rajnikant Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
1667
dead body and he stated that he had conducted
the postmortem examination and he has
mentioned in the postmortem examination
report
that
the
cause
of
death
was
cardiopulmonary arrest due to chronic lung
disease. However, he had suffered lung
infection as he had to remain hospitalized for a
long period due to the injures suffered by him.

15. The learned AGA has produced
before the Court the statements of all the three
injured persons. The injured Mohd. Athar
stated that the other accused persons had
assaulted him on the exhortation of the
applicant. Mohd. Nazar (the deceased) stated
that all the accused persons had beaten up his
son and him.

16. It is relevant to note that Parvez
Khan, against whom the allegation of making
assault with an axe has been levelled, has
already been granted bail by the Session
Court.

17. Having considered the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case and keeping in
view the fact that the deceased died two
months and eighteen days after the incident
and the cause of death has been opined to be
cardiopulmonary arrest due to chronic lung
disease; that the applicant is a 55 years old
person and the person against whom the
allegation of making assault with an axe has
been levelled has already been granted bail by
the Session Court whereas the allegation
against the applicant is of exhortation only and
the other persons have received simple
injuries, I am of the view that the applicant is
entitled to be granted on anticipatory bail.

18. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.

19. In the event of arrest/appearance of
applicant- Nafees Ahmad before the learned
Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he/she
shall be released on anticipatory bail on his/her
furnishing personal bond and two solvent
sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the
following conditions and subject to any other
conditions that may be fixed by the Trial
Court:

(i) that the applicant shall make
himself/herself 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 or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave
India without the previous permission of the
court.

(iv) that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed, unless
personal presence is exempted; and

(v) that the applicant shall not
pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1667
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40954 of
2023

Rajnikant Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party