Allahabad High Court

WALI AHMAD ALIAS WALIYATversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The court held that, given the hostile witnesses and lack of any indication of evidence tampering, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S.

Summary

The applicant, Wali Ahmad alias Waliyat, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. after his earlier bail plea was rejected. The case involves charges under Sections 333, 352, 64 and 351(3) of the B.N.S.S. based on a complaint lodged at Kemri police station. The trial court had recorded the victim (P.W.-2) and her mother (P.W.-3) as hostile witnesses who completely disowned the prosecution’s version, stating the dispute was personal and the victim was a married adult woman. The applicant’s counsel submitted that there was no evidence of tampering or risk to the investigation and that the applicant had no prior criminal record. Considering the hostile testimony, the absence of any material indicating a danger of evidence tampering, and the applicant’s clean record, the High Court held that bail could be enlarged and ordered his release on personal bond with several conditions. The bail application was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. in view of the hostile testimony of the victim and her mother.
Whether the nature of the evidence and the absence of any risk of tampering justify granting bail.
Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal antecedents influences the bail decision.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 209, 269, 333, 351, 351(3), 352, 483, 64, 84

Subjects

bail
hostile witness
Section 483
criminal trial
evidence tampering
major woman
Uttar Pradesh
criminal miscellaneous bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10746 of 2026

Wali Ahmad Alias Waliyat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 76
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay
Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been
filed by the applicant- Wali Ahmad alias Waliyat, seeking enlargement on
bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.59 of 2025, under
Section(s) 333, 352, 64, 351(3) B.N.S., registered at P.S.- Kemri, District-
Rampur.

4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.19004 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated
18.8.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has produced before the Court the
statement of Narayan Singh, Special Educator, who has been examined as
P.W.1 before the trial court concerned, which is taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first
informant/victim was examined before the trial court as P.W.-2 who has
not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is
further submitted that Smt. Nafees Jahan the mother of the victim, was
examined before the trial court as P.W.-3 who has also not supported the
prosecution case and has been declared hostile. The statement of the
victim has placed before the Court which is annexure no. 11 to the
affidavit in support of this bail application whereas the statement of Smt.
Nafees Jahan/P.W.-3 has been placed before the Court which is annexure
no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 13.5.2026. It is submitted
that the victim/first informant while being examined in the court has
totally disowned the prosecution case and has stated that the accused had
taken some money from her father and on asking for the same, he
BAIL No. 10746 of 2026
2

misbehaved and refused to give money. She states that she is married and
lives with her husband. It is submitted that looking to the said fact and
also the fact that the victim has given her statement after the trial court
took the help of Special Educator and was satisfied that after putting her
some general questions, the prosecution case is false case due to enmity
between the parties. It is submitted that the victim was opined to be aged
about 20 years of age as per certificate dated 25.4.2025 of the C.M.O.
concerned but even otherwise, the First Information Report mentions that
she is aged about 28 years. It is submitted that in either of the situations
the victim/first informant was a major woman. It is argued that the
applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-24 of the
affidavit and is in jail since 30.4.2025.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the victim is a major woman. She was examined
before the trial court as P.W.-2 who has not supported the prosecution
case and has been declared hostile. She has totally disowned the
prosecution version. Her mother was examined as P.W.-3 who has also
not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. The
victim states that she is a married woman and is living with her husband.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Wali Ahmad alias Waliyat, be released on bail in
the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of
justice:-

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not
harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on
every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner
whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when 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.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
BAIL No. 10746 of 2026
3

whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS,
2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the
date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate
proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS,
2023.

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)
recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion
of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such
default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance
with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269
BNS, 2023.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to
conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by
court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the
applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Samit Gopal,J.)
September 30, 2026
Naresh

Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…