# Sikandar Alam v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1179
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Ist Bail Application No. 3263 of 2025
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sikandar-alam-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53440
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 120-B, 506 & 34 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 -
It is admitted fact that applicant is
habitual offender, involved in commission
of heinous offence with criminal history of
17 serious cases - Not cooperating with
investigation agency or police, as nonbailable warrant has been issued against
him - Furthermore, his writ petition
seeking quashing of F.I.R. has already
been
dismissed
earlier
-
Perusal
of
custodial report, evidence and material
collected by police during investigation
reveals
sufficient
credible
evidence
against
applicant
for
offences
under
aforesaid
Sections
-
Complainant's
St.ment
also
implicates
applicant
in
alleged crime - Possibility to threat
members of family of informant and
witnesses - Considering above grounds,
anticipatory
bail
application
rejected.
(Para 12, 13)
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Sikandar Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1179
called upon to consider the effect of the
combined provisions of ss. 5 and 14.
Therefore, in our opinion, considerations
which have been expressly made material
and relevant by the provisions of s. 14
cannot to the same extent and in the same
manner be invoked in dealing with
applications which fall to be decided only
under s. 5 without reference to s. 14."

(31) As a sequel to the above, we do
not consider this an appropriate case for
condoning the delay in both situations i.e.
(i) 77 days as on 22.01.2025 when the
appeal was filed firstly albeit with defects
and without application for condonation of
delay and (ii) 93 days as on 07.02.2025
when
the
appeal
was
re-filed
after
removing the defects accompanied with an
application for condonation of delay in
filing of the present appeal, keeping in
view the objective of expeditious disposal
imbibed in both the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as the
Commercial Court Act, 2015. Thus, the
application for condonation of delay in
filing the above-captioned appeal is hereby
rejected.

Order on Appeal

(32) In the present appeal, the
impugned order passed by the Commercial
Court-1, Lucknow under Section 34 of the
Act, 1996 has been sought to be challenged
by the appellants by filing a belated appeal
under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 beyond
the permissible 60 days without any
"sufficient cause" as aforesaid, thus, the
above-captioned appeal is held to be time
barred and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(33) A copy of the order shall be sent
to the Registrar General for ensuring
correct reporting of limitation in Appeal
under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 arising out of
Commercial Courts order.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1179
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Ist Bail Application
No. 3263 of 2025
(U/S 482 of the BNSS)

Sikandar Alam ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Sri Pankaj Bharti

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Sri Ved Prakash
Mishra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 120-B, 506 & 34 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 -
It is admitted fact that applicant is
habitual offender, involved in commission
of heinous offence with criminal history of
17 serious cases - Not cooperating with
investigation agency or police, as nonbailable warrant has been issued against
him - Furthermore, his writ petition
seeking quashing of F.I.R. has already
been
dismissed
earlier
-
Perusal
of
custodial report, evidence and material
collected by police during investigation
reveals
sufficient
credible
evidence
against
applicant
for
offences
under
aforesaid
Sections
-
Complainant's
St.ment
also
implicates
applicant
in
alleged crime - Possibility to threat
members of family of informant and
witnesses - Considering above grounds,
anticipatory
bail
application
rejected.
(Para 12, 13)
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs Ashish Chatterjee
& anr.1 (2010) 14 SCC-496, (Para 9)

2. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav & anr.(2004) & SCC 528 (Para 11)

3. St. of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8
SCC 21

4. X Vs St. of Rajasthan & anr., Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No.13378 of 2024, (Para 14)

5. Brijmani Devi Vs Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC
497, (Paras 25, 26)

6. Jitendra Pratap Singh @ Jeetu Vs St. of U.P.,
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 CR.P.C. No.144 of 2024 by Allahabad High
Court (Lucknow Bench), (Paras 15 to 19)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari
Singh, J.)

1. The instant application has been
filed on behalf of applicant - Sikandar
Alam, under Section 482 of B.N.S.S.
seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime
No.0169 of 2024, under Sections 302, 120B, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station - Shahganj,
District - Jaunpur.

2. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of applicant has submitted that
applicant was not named in the F.I.R., his
name was disclosed in the statement of
informant. It is further submitted that
informant/opposite
party
no.2
was
a
reporter of Sudarshan News and R.T.I.
Activist. It is further submitted that some
dispute was going on between applicant
and informant, therefore, he has been
falsely implicated. In the statement of
informant recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. has not disclosed the name of
applicant but in subsequent statement he
has taken the name of applicant first time
due to ulterior motive. It is clarified that
brother of informant being activist was
investigating the irregularities regarding
'Madarsa properties' but applicant was not
connected with the said 'Madarsa' so, there
was no reason available to commit the
offence by the applicant as alleged in the
F.I.R. It is submitted that there is no
credible evidence or material on record to
connect the applicant to the instant offence.
The applicant is also suffering from some
brain and heart disease and treatment is
going on in the hospital at Mumbai since
2003. It is also submitted that previous
criminal history has been explained in
respective paragraphs of the paper book.
He has been falsely roped in the offence
punishable under Section 302, 120-B, 506,
34 I.P.C. and has great apprehension of
arrest by the police.

3. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of applicant has further submitted
that
considering
the
aforesaid
facts,
applicant may be released on anticipatory
bail at the event of the arrest. He has
undertaken
to
co-operate
with
the
investigation and also undertaken that he
shall abide by all terms and conditions
imposed by this Court while granting the
anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
State
vehemently
opposed
the
instant
anticipatory bail application and has
submitted that applicant has antecedents of
17 criminal cases, all are serious in nature.
He is a habitual offender. It is also
submitted that F.I.R. was lodged on
14.05.2024 and since then he is absconding
from the police and not co-operating with
the investigation. It is further submitted that
5 All. Sikandar Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1181
non-bailable warrant has been issued on
26.03.2025, in spite of that applicant is not
appearing before the police or investigating
agency. It is further submitted that
applicant filed a Writ Petition under Article
226 for quashing of F.I.R., which was
dismissed by Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 13.11.2024. It is also
submitted that after dismissal of the said
writ petition applicant has chosen not to
appear before the investigating agency and
avoiding the investigation. He has charged
for
the
heinous
crime
for
offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC along
with Sections 120-B, 506, 34 of I.P.C. It is
further
submitted
that
the
evidences
collected by the police during investigation,
is credible evidence to connect the
applicant with the offence as alleged. There
are no contradictions in statement of the
informant. It is also submitted that if,
applicant will release on anticipatory bail,
he may influence the investigation and also
influence the witnesses.

5. The learned counsel for State
submitted that taking into consideration the
nature
of
offence,
his
custodial
interrogation
is
required.
It
is
also
submitted that in the catena of judgment,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the
heinous offences the Courts may not grant
anticipatory bail generally. In the instant
case there are credible evidences against
the applicant which connect the applicant
with the instant case. Applicant is a
habitual offender as he has criminal history
of 17 cases which establishes that he may
influence the investigation or may threat
the witnesses. It is vehemently submitted
that taking into consideration the nature of
offence and criminal history of the
applicant, the instant bail application may
be rejected.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant/informant appeared in advance
notice vehemently opposed the instant bail
application and submitted that brother of
informant has been brutally murdered by
the applicant. It is also referred the criminal
antecedents of the applicant. Applicant is
hard core criminal and therefore, there are
possibility to threat the members of family
of the informant and witnesses in the
instant case. It is also submitted that if
applicant will release on anticipatory bail, it
is great chance to misuse the bail
conditions.
Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant has vehemently submitted that
in view of facts and circumstances of the
case, the applicant has measurably failed to
make out any case for granting anticipatory
bail. Therefore, the instant bail applicant is
devoid of any merit and is liable to be
rejected.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of applicant, Sri Ved Prakash
Mishra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant as well as Sri
Kailash Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the contents made in bail
application as well as the material available
on record.

8. Before considering the rival
submissions on behalf of the respective
parties, the provision of new statute
regarding
grant
of
bail
to
person
apprehending arrest is being reproduced
herein below for ready reference:

9. Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. for
grant of anticipatory bail, when a person
apprehends arrest for non-bailable offence
the provision vested discretion in the courts
to grant anticipatory bail based on these
facts and circumstances of the case, Section
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
482 B.N.S.S. produced herein for better
adjudication of the instant case:-

"482. Direction for grant of bail
to person apprehending arrest.

(1) When any person has reason
to believe that he may be arrested on an
accusation of having committed a nonbailable offence, he may apply to the High
Court or the Court of Session for a
direction under this section; and that Court
may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event
of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

(2 )When the High Court or the
Court of Session makes a direction under
sub-section (1), it may include such
conditions in such directions in the light of
the facts of the particular case, as it may
think fit, including-(i) a condition that the
person shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;(ii) a condition that the
person 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) a condition that the person
shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;(iv) such other
condition as may be imposed under subsection (3) of section 480, as if the bail
were granted under that section.

(3) If such person is thereafter
arrested without warrant by an officer in
charge of a police station on such
accusation, and is prepared either at the
time of arrest or at any time while in the
custody of such officer to give bail, he shall
be released on bail; and if a Magistrate
taking cognizance of such offence decides
that a warrant should be issued in the first
instance against that person, he shall issue
a bailable warrant in conformity with the
direction of the Court under sub-section
(1).

(4) Nothing in this section shall
apply to any case involving the arrest of
any person on accusation of having
committed an offence under section 65 and
sub-section (2) of section 70 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023."

10. The determination of whether a
case is fit for grant of bail involves the
balancing of the numerous factors among
which the nature of the offence, the severity
of the punishment and prima facie view of
the involvement of the accused are
important. No straight jacket formula exists
for Courts to assess an application for the
grant or rejection of bail.

11. At the stage of assessing whether
a case is fit for the grant of bail, the Court
is not required to enter into detailed
analysis of the evidence on record to
establish beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime by the accused.
That is a matter for trial. However, the
Court is required to examine whether there
is a prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused has committed the
offence
and
on
a
balance
of
the
considerations involved, the continued
custody of the accused sub-serves the
purpose of criminal justice system.

12. It is admitted fact that the applicant
is a habitual offender and there are criminal
history of 17 cases, all are serious in nature. It
is also admitted fact that applicant is not cooperating with the investigating agency as
non-bailable warrant has already been issued
against him. The writ petition filed by the
applicant before the Division Bench of this
Court for quashing of F.I.R. has already been
dismissed.
5 All. Sikandar Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1183

13. I have also perused the custodial
report and the evidence and material
collected by the police during investigation,
there are sufficient credible evidence
collected by the police to link the applicant
to the offence punishable under Sections
302, 120-B, 506, 34 I.P.C. and I have also
read the statement of complainant recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in his statement,
it is clearly stated that he is responsible for
the commission of offence as alleged.

"बयाि वादी....श्री संतोि िुमार श्रीवास्तव पुत्र
स्व० श्री योिेन्द्र प्रसाद श्रीवास्तव किवासी ग्राम सबरहद थािा
शाहिंज जौिपुर मो.ि. 7052484838 द्वारा पूछताछ पर बताया
कि मैं ग्राम सबरहद िा रहिे वाला ह ाँ हम 6 र्ाई थे, सबसे बडे
कविोद श्रीवास्तव उििे बाद प्रमोद श्रीवास्तव कफर मैं तथा मेरे बाद
आशुतोि, पररतोि, अतुल थे हमारी दो बहिें शकशबाला व मधुबाला
र्ी हैं। आशुतोि श्रीवास्तव सुदशभि न्यूज चैिल स्थािीय पत्रिार थे
तथा सूचिा िे अकधिार िा प्रयोि िर जि समस्याओं िो हल
िरािे में आिे रहते थे िेत्र में अवैध रूप से िी जािे वाली िौ
तस्िरी िा कवरोध िरते थे हमारे िांव सबरहद िे िार्ा संख्या
1816 तालाब खाते िे िाम दजभ था कजस पर िांव िे िुछ लोिों
िी िाफी समय से कियत िब्जा िरिे िी र्ी कजसिे चलते िांव िे
िुछ लोिों द्वारा साकजश िर तालाब खाते िी जमीि िी िवैय्यत
पररवकतभत िर उसे फारुकिया मदरसा िे िाम दजभ िरा दी ियी तथा
उस जमीि पर फारुकिया मदरसे िे प्रबन्ध सकमकत िे लोिों द्वारा
अवैध रूप से लीज पर देिर मछली पालि िरािर अवैध रुप से
रुपया िमाया जा रहा था। कजसिी जाििारी जब मेरे र्ाई आशुतोि
िो हुई तो उसिे द्वारा िाकसर जमाल पुत्र फरीदुलहि, अरफी उफभ
िामराि पुत्र मैिुद्दीि, जमीरुद्दीि पुत्र हिीफ िुरैसी व मो. हाकसम पुत्र
वाकहद द्वारा किये िये अवैध िब्जे िे सम्बन्ध में तहसील शाहिंज व
राजस्व पररिद उत्तर प्रदेश लखिऊ िो जररये आईजीआरएस
कशिायत िी ियी व आरर्ीआई िे तहत वस्तुकस्थकत िे सम्बन्ध में
तहसील शाहिंज से सूचिा मााँिी ियी कजस िारण फारुकिया मदरसे
प्रबन्ध सकमकत िे िाकसर जमाल पुत्र फरीदुलहि, अरफी उफभ
िामराि पुत्र मैिुद्दीि जमीरुद्दीि पुत्र हिीफ िुरैसी व मो. हाकसम पुत्र
वाकहद आकद मेरे र्ाई से िाफी िाराज हो िये िाकसर जमाल द्वारा
पोखरे िी जमीि, रामलीला मैदाि व रामरथ मािभ पर अकतिमण िर
खाता संख्या 1037 में िराया िया कजसमें उसिा सहयोि अरफी
उफभ िामराि द्वारा किया िया अरफी द्वारा िाकसर जमाल िे िहिे पर
पोखरे िी जमीि रकिवाया िी जमीि, चााँद तारा पोखरे िी जमीि पर
र्ी िाकसर जमाल व अन्य से साकजश िर िब्जा किया िया मो.
हाकसम जो वतभमाि में कजला िारािार जौिपुर में बंद है िे द्वारा विभ
2020 मेरे र्ाई आशुतोि िे कवरुद्ध एि फजी मुिदमा 330/22
धारा 302/307/504/506/120बी. र्ादंकव पंजीिृत िराया
था कववेचिा से सत्यता पायी जािे पर अकर्योि में धारा
302/201/194/211/120बी
र्ादंकव
व
3(2)5
एस.सी/एस. डी एक्र् िा अपराध हाकसम िे कवरुद्ध ही पाया िया था
कजसमें वह जेल र्ेजा िया था अकर्युक्त जमीरुद्दीि िेत्र िा एि बडा
िो तस्िर है जो आस पास िे िेत्र से िाय बैल िो अवैध रूप से
िर्ाि िे कलए तस्िरी किये जािे में कलप्त रहता है। मेरे र्ाई द्वारा
आशुतोि द्वारा इि सर्ी लोिों िे अवैध िृत्यों िे कवरुद्ध आवाज
कवकर्न्ि माध्यमों से उठाई थी कजससे यह सर्ी लोि मेरे र्ाई से
िाफी िाराज थे तथा मेरे र्ाई िो िई बार प्रत्यि व अप्रत्यि रुप में
जाि से मारिे िी धमिी र्ी दी थी। कजसिी सूचिा मेरे र्ाई द्वारा
समय समय पर प्रशासि िो दी ियी थी। िल कदिांि
13.05.2024 िी सुबह 9.30 बजे मेरा र्ाई अपिे बुलेर्
मोर्रसाइकिल िं. यूपी 65 डीआर 0447 से उसरहर्ा आजाद
जािे िो िहिर घर से कििला था मैं उससे पूवभ ही घर िे पास
संतलाल मेकडिल स्र्ोर पर दवा लेिे िया था जब मेरे र्ाई
मोर्रसाइकिल लेिर सबरहद मोड िे पास िाजी एि व किरािा
स्र्ोर िे पास पहुंचा तो वहााँ पहले से मौजूद अफी व उसिे साथ 5
अज्ञात लोिों द्वारा मेरे र्ाई िो हाथ देिर रोिा िया मेरे र्ाई िे
मोर्रसाइकिल रोि दी तर्ी उफी व िामराि िे इशारे पर पांचों
लोिों िे अपिे पास कलये घाति शस्त्रों से मेरे र्ाई आशुतोि िो जाि
से मारिे िी कियत में िोकलयां मार दी। लोिो िो आतंकित िरते हुये
अरफी उफभ िामराि िे कचल्लािर िहा आज र्ाई िाकसर जमाल
जकमरुद्दीि व मोहम्मद हाकसम व मदरसे िे िमेर्ी िे लोिों िा िाम
पूरा हो िया कजसे संतलाल मेकडिल स्र्ोर पर मौजूद मैंिे सुिा व पूरी
घर्िा देखी घर्िा िे बाद हमलावर व अरफी मौिे से र्ाि िये
उििे र्ाि जािे िे बाद मैंिे र्ाििर घायल आशुतोि िो सडि से
सहारा देिर उठाया घर पर खबर िर अपिे र्ाइयों अतुल व
पाररतोि िो बुलािर र्ेम्पो से आशुतोि िो शाहिंज अस्पताल ले
जािे लिे। रास्ते में आशुतोि िे रुि रुि िर इशारे से हम तीिो
र्ाइयों िो बताया कि उसे अरफी उफभ िामराि, िाकसर जमाल,
जमीरुद्दीि, मो. हाकसम व फारुकिया मदरसे प्रबन्ध सकमकत िे लोिों
द्वारा साकजश िर िोली मरवायी ियी है। र्ैम्पो से ले जाते समय िुछ
आिे चलिे पर वीमार्भ िे दुिाि िे सामिे पहुाँचते पहुाँचते आशुतोि
िे िोकलयों से आयी चोर् िे िारण दम तोड कदया हम लोि सी.
एच.सी. शाहिंज पहुंचे जहां डाक्र्र िे मेरे र्ाई िा मुआयिा िर उसे
मृत घोकित िर कदया। अचािि इतिी बडी घर्िा हो जािे िे िारण
हमारा पूरा पररवार सदमे व डर िे िारण र्यर्ीत था तथा आशुतोि
िे शव िा पोस्र्मार्भम व उसिी अंत्येकष्ट िमभ िाण्ड में लिे रहिे िे
िारण तत्िाल थािे पर तहरीर िहीं दे सिा था। आज िुछ फुसभत
पािर तहरीर र्ाइप थािे पर आिर मुिदमा कलखाया है। मेरे पररवार
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िे लोि अर्ी र्ी दहशत में है हमें डर है कि मुकल्जमाि हम पर र्ी
हमला ि िरा दे।"

14. In the case of Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar vs Ashish Chatterjee & Anr.1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"Para 09: We are of the opinion
that
the
impugned order
is
clearly
unsustainable. It is trite that this Court
does not normally, interfere with an order
passed by the High Court granting or
rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is
equally incumbent upon the High Court to
exercise
its
discretion
judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with
the basic principles laid down in a plethora
of decisions of this Court on the point. It is
well
settled
that,
among
other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for
bail are:

(i) Whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the
accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in
the event of conviction;

(iv)
danger
of
the
accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means,
position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence
being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail."

15. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs.
Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav &
Anr2. - Hon'ble the Supreme Court
observed in paragraph 11 as under:-

"11. The law in regard to grant
or refusal of bail is very well settled. The
court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not
as a matter of course. Though at the stage
of granting bail a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in
such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted
particularly, where the accused is charged
of having committed a serious offence.
Any order devoid of such reasons would
suffer from non application of mind. It is
also necessary for the court granting bail
to consider among other circumstances,
the following factors also before granting
bail; they are:a) The nature of accusation
and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence) Reasonable apprehension of
tampering
with
the
witness
or
apprehension
of
threat
to
the
complainant."

16. In the case of State of UP vs.
Amarmani
Tripathi3
-
Hon'ble
the
Supreme Court noted the facts of the case
therein to the effect that the respondent
therein had been named in ten other
criminal cases in the last 25 years or so, out
of which five cases were under Section 307
IPC for attempt to murder and another
under Section 302 IPC for committing
murder. That in most of the cases he was
acquitted for want of sufficient evidence.
Without saying anything further this Court
noted that the High Court in the said case
completely ignored the general principle
for grant of bail in a heinous crime of
commission of murder in which the
sentence, if convicted, death or life
imprisonment.
5 All. Sikandar Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1185

17. In the case of X Vs. State of
Rajasthan
and
another4
-
Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in para 14 as
under:-

"14.
Ordinarily
in
serious
offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc.,
once
the
trial
commences
and
the
prosecution starts examining its witnesses,
the Court be it the Trial Court or the High
Court should be loath in entertaining the
bail application of the accused."

18. In the case of Brijmani Devi vs.
Pappu Kumar5; Hon'ble the Supreme
Court has held as under:-

"25. While we are conscious of
the fact that liberty of an individual is an
invaluable right, at the same time while
considering an application for bail Courts
cannot lose sight of he serious nature of the
accusations against an accused and the
facts that have a bearing in the case,
particularly, when the accusations may not
be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature
but are supported by adequate material
brought on record so as to enable a Court
to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While
considering an application for grant of bail
a prima facie conclusion must be supported
by reasons and must be arrived at after
having regard to the vital facts of the case
brought on record. Due consideration must
be given to facts suggestive of the nature of
crime, the criminal antecedents of the
accused, if any, and the nature of
punishment that would follow a conviction
vis-a-vis the offence/s alleged against an
accused.

26.
We
have
extracted
the
relevant portions of the impugned orders
above. At the outset, we observe that the
extracted portions are the only portions
forming part of the "reasoning" of the High
court while granting bail. As noted from the
aforecited judgments, it is not necessary for
a Court to give elaborate reasons while
granting bail particularly when the case is
at the initial stage and the allegations of
the offences by the accused would not have
been crystallised as such. There cannot be
elaborate details recorded to give an
impression that the case is one that would
result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an
acquittal while passing an order on an
application for grant of bail. At the same
time, a balance would have to be struck
between the nature of the allegations made
against
the
accused;severity
of
the
punishment if the allegations are proved
beyond reasonable doubt and would result
in a conviction; reasonable apprehension
of the witnesses being influenced by the
accused;tampering of the evidence; the
frivolity in the case of the prosecution;
criminal antecedents of the accused; and a
prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge against the accused."

19. In the latest judgment passed by
the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in
the case of Jitendra Pratap Singh alias
Jeetu Vs. State of U.P.6 has held as under:-

"15. In the present case, the State
amendment explicitly prohibits anticipatory
bail for offences punishable by death
sentence. The statutory bar is absolute. It is
not for the Courts to rewrite the law or
create exceptions to a legislative mandate
that is unequivocal. While the Courts are
the guardians of individual liberties, they
are also bound to uphold the rule of law
and respect the boundaries set by the
legislature.

16. The argument that the nature
of the offence should be considered in
determining whether anticipatory bail can
be
granted,
despite
the
statutory
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prohibition, is untenable. Such an approach
would effectively render the legislative bar
meaningless and open the door to judicial
overreach.

17. Any perceived hardship or
injustice that may arise from the strict
application of the statutory bar is a matter for
the
legislature
to
address
through
amendment. It is not for the Courts to fill
perceived gaps in the law by exercising
discretion contrary to the express provisions
of the statute. However, as settled by the
Supreme Court in the case of Prithvi Raj
Chauhan (supra), the Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India can still grant interim protection from
arrest if prima facie, the offences alleged are
not made out from the contents of the
complaint. Further, even an interim bail can
be granted by a Court, in appropriate cases,
pending a regular bail application.

18. In light of the clear and
unequivocal wording of Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C., which prohibits filing of anticipatory
bail application in cases where the offence is
punishable by death sentence, this Court is of
the opinion that no judicial discretion can be
exercised to entertain anticipatory bail
application in such cases.

19. The answer to the question
referred to this Bench is, therefore, in the
negative. The Courts cannot entertain
anticipatory bail application in cases where
the State amendment prohibits it."

20. Taking into consideration of
reasons stated in foregoing paragraphs, I do
not find any merit in the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for applicant
and contents made in the bail application
for the following reasons:-

Firstly, the applicant allegedly
involved in commission of heinous offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC, in
which the sentence may be awarded life
imprisonment or death sentence.

Secondly,
in
the
statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the
informant has corroborated the contents of
the F.I.R., the other materials on record,
which have been collected by the police
during investigation prima facie linked the
applicant for commission of said offence.

Thirdly, applicant has history of
17 criminal cases.

Fourthly, Taking into consideration
of criminal history of applicant, there are
great apprehension of threat to the witnesses
as stated by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.

21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I
do not find any merit in the instant
application. Therefore, without expressing
any opinion on merits, the instant bail
application is rejected.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1186
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12507 of 2024

Anwar Dhebar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Utkarsh Malviya, Varad Nath

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 19(1), 21, 22(1), 39-A & 226 -