Allahabad High Court
Zahid Jamal Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. on 10 June, 2025
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:96176
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3868 of 2025
Applicant :- Zahid Jamal Siddiqui
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nasira Adil
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This application (under Section 482 BNSS) has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.278 of 2024, under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that applicant was Director in the Sales Department (as full time and permanent employee) in Star Future Infracity & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and he was posted at Gorakhpur since 25.03.2013 to 29.10.2022. Applicant has resigned from his services on 29.10.2022. She further submits that the present FIR has been lodged after two years from the resignation of applicant. The alleged incident was committed by co-accused persons, namely, Abhijeet Srivastava and Divya Sharma. She further submits that there are four criminal history against the applicant and the same have been explained in paragraph no.33 of the affidavit filed in support of present application, wherein, in three cases applicant has been released on bail by the Court of Sessions and in one case he has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The said orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos.10, 11, 12 and 13 in the affidavit filed in support of present application. She further submits that alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment upto seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The applicant has been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCC 51. Lastly she submits that the applicant has apprehension of is arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail.
Let the applicant Zahid Jamal Siddiqui involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(2) 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; and
(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(7) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.6.2025
I.A.Siddiqui
