Judgment · High Court

Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2025, under Sections 69, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above- mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant. He further submits that as per the allegation in the FIR the applicant is said to have established physical relationship with the victim/first informant on the false pretext of marriage. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after a delay of five years. It is also submitted that there is no medical evidence regarding suffering of miscarriage by the victim/first informant by any injury caused by the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co- operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 2 NABAIL No. 8692 of 2025

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the victim has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.

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

First information report has been lodged after a delay of five years and as per the allegation in the FIR the applicant is said to have established physical relationship with the victim/first informant on the false pretext of marriage. The applicant is having no criminal history.

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Malik Anwar involved in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 3 NABAIL No. 8692 of 2025 threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein. October 29, 2025 Abhishek (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)