Allahabad High Court

SHAHRUKHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the murder and given the questionable reliability of the recovered items, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shahrukh, accused in a murder case (Criminal Case No. 283 of 2024) under Sections 302, 201 and 120‑B IPC. The applicant argued that the FIR named him only because he was a friend of the prime accused, Arbaz, the husband of the deceased, and that the only physical evidence – a lower jaw and hairs recovered from an open field – was unreliable and uncorroborated. The prosecution could not produce any additional evidence linking the applicant to the crime, and the court noted that the applicant had been in custody for over two years. Although the applicant has prior convictions under the Cow Slaughter Act and a separate IPC 307 case, the court found these did not preclude bail. Consequently, the court granted bail with standard conditions, without commenting on the merits of the trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where the evidence against the applicant is primarily circumstantial and lacks corroboration.
Whether the applicant's prior criminal history under the Cow Slaughter Act and IPC 307 impacts the bail decision.
Whether the recovered forensic items (lower jaw and hairs) are reliable enough to justify continued detention.

Legislation cited

Cow Slaughter Act
Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 201, 302, 307

Subjects

bail
murder
circumstantial evidence
Indian Penal Code
prior criminal history
evidence reliability

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10864 of 2026

Shahrukh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : M.J. Akhtar, Pankaj Bharti, Shahzad
Alam, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajnikant Rai, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC,
Police Station Kotwali, District Muzaffarnagar, during pendency of the trial
in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case
was lodged by police personnel and however applicant is named in the FIR
but from the record it reflects, co-accused Arbaz, the husband of the
deceased was prime accused and he was arrested at spot while he was trying
to dispose of the dead body of the deceased.

5. He further submitted that however as per prosecution applicant was also
present at the spot but he was managed to escape.

6. He further submitted that apart from the statement of the co-accused and
confessional statement of the applicant recorded by the Investigating Officer
as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out,
lower jaw and hairs of deceased were recovered from a field but entire
recovery is false and planted one.

7. He further submitted that even from the recovery memo it reflects, alleged
BAIL No. 10864 of 2026
2

recovery was made from an open place which was accessible to all.

8. He further submitted that even in absence of any other corroborative
evidence merely on the basis of above recoveries, prima facie, it cannot be
said that applicant involved in the instant crime alongwith co-accused
Arbaz.

9. He further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and
motive to commit crime was against co-accused Arbaz i.e. husband of the
deceased. He further submitted that it reflects, as applicant is the friend of
co-accused Arbaz, therefore, police also implicated him alongwith the co-
accused.

10. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case applicant
is having criminal history of two other cases but one case relates to Cow
Slaughter Act and another case is a case of police party no injury case.

11. He further submitted that in the present matter applicant is in jail since
1.7.2024 i.e. for last more than two years.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.

14. However as per prosecution applicant alongwith co-accused Arbaz who
was husband of the deceased committed the murder of the deceased but from
the record of the case, co-accused Arbaz, the husband of the deceased
appears to be prime accused.

15. Further, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and as far as
circumstances are concerned, as per prosecution apart from the confessional
statement of the applicant and statement of co-accused Arbaz recorded by
the Investigating Officer, on the pointing out of the applicant, lower jaw and
hairs of the deceased were recovered but from the recovery memo which has
been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit it reflects, alleged
recoveries were made from a field which was open to all.

16. Further, even it reflects, till date alleged recovered items could not be
BAIL No. 10864 of 2026
3

connected with the instant crime.

17. Further even this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the applicant that in absence of any other corroborative evidence
merely on the basis of above recoveries, prima facie, it cannot be said that
applicant also involved in commission of the present crime alongwith co-
accused Arbaz.

18. Further, admittedly applicant is the friend of co-accused Arbaz and
therefore, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with
regard to his false implication can also not be completely ruled out at this
stage.

19. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal
history of two other cases but his criminal history has been explained and it
reflects, one case relates to the provisions of Cow Slaughter Act and another
one though of section 307 IPC but it is a case of police party no injury case.

20. Further in the present matter applicant is in jail since 1.7.2024 i.e. for
last more than two years.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.

23. Let the applicant-Shahrukh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

24. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
BAIL No. 10864 of 2026
4

at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.

25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during
trial.

September 18, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…