Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Muzammil seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.23 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506 IPC and 4/5/6 of Immoral Traffic Act, P.S. Thanabhawan, District Shamli.

2. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Ambreen Masroor, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It is also submitted that the applicant has not been made an accused for the offence under Section 376-D IPC and no role of rape has been assigned to the present applicant, who happens to be the uncle of the main accused Dr. Nadeem. Only role of threatening has been assigned to the present applicant. No incriminating article has been retrieved from the pointing out or from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of a solitary case wherein his arrest has been stayed by this Court. It has been submitted that in case 2 NABAIL No. 8312 of 2025 applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is not cooperative with the I.O. of this case and that is why non-bailable warrant has been issued against him. The present applicant has played active role in commission of the present crime. It is also submitted that the informant / victim of this case has subsequently committed suicide and another case has been lodged wherein the applicant has also been made an accused. However, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the instant case does not relate to the suicide committed by the victim and in that case another F.I.R. has been lodged.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. As per the F.I.R. of this case, the young lady, who was working at the clinic of the main accused Dr. Nadeem as maid servant, was blackmailed by Dr. Nadeem on the basis of some obscene videos relating to the informant lady alongwith his friend Dr. Gayyur Ahmad. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started which is going on.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood influencing course investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 3 NABAIL No. 8312 of 2025

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC / 193 of BNSS before the Competent Court.

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any 4 NABAIL No. 8312 of 2025 police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 3, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Muzammil seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.23 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506 IPC and 4/5/6 of Immoral Traffic Act, P.S. Thanabhawan, District Shamli.

2. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Ambreen Masroor, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It is also submitted that the applicant has not been made an accused for the offence under Section 376-D IPC and no role of rape has been assigned to the present applicant, who happens to be the uncle of the main accused Dr. Nadeem. Only role of threatening has been assigned to the present applicant. No incriminating article has been retrieved from the pointing out or from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of a solitary case wherein his arrest has been stayed by this Court. It has been submitted that in case 2 NABAIL No. 8312 of 2025 applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is not cooperative with the I.O. of this case and that is why non-bailable warrant has been issued against him. The present applicant has played active role in commission of the present crime. It is also submitted that the informant / victim of this case has subsequently committed suicide and another case has been lodged wherein the applicant has also been made an accused. However, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the instant case does not relate to the suicide committed by the victim and in that case another F.I.R. has been lodged.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. As per the F.I.R. of this case, the young lady, who was working at the clinic of the main accused Dr. Nadeem as maid servant, was blackmailed by Dr. Nadeem on the basis of some obscene videos relating to the informant lady alongwith his friend Dr. Gayyur Ahmad. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started which is going on.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood influencing course investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 3 NABAIL No. 8312 of 2025

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC / 193 of BNSS before the Competent Court.

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any 4 NABAIL No. 8312 of 2025 police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 3, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)