Allahabad High Court

FAZAL @ BHOLA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

In the absence of substantive evidence linking the applicants to the offences and without any reasonable apprehension of tampering or witness intimidation, the applicants are entitled to bail.

Summary

The applicants, Fazal @ Bhola and Rizwan, were arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 1103 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 109, 351(3) and 324(4) of the Indian Penal Code. They claimed they were falsely implicated, that the injuries to the alleged victims were minor, and that there was no direct evidence linking them to the crime. The State opposed bail, arguing that the earlier bail rejection order was lawful. The Court examined the record and found only vague, general allegations against the applicants with no substantive proof, and noted that the applicants had been in custody for about nine months without any indication that they would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Consequently, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail and ordered their release on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions. The bail order was granted with directions for compliance and provision for cancellation if conditions are breached.

Issues considered

Whether the applicants are entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charges and prolonged pre‑trial detention.
Whether the prosecution has produced substantive evidence linking the applicants to the offences under the cited IPC sections.
Whether the State has demonstrated any reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay if bail is granted.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 333, 351(3)

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
false implication
presumption of innocence
trial delay
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11256 of 2026

Fazal @ Bhola And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Dubey, Chandra Bhan
Dubey, Syed Ali Imam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vibhu Rai

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel
for the informant, as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 1103 of 2025, under Sections
191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 109, 351(3) and 324(4) BNS, Police Station
Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the subject case. It is next
submitted that as per statement of doctor, injuries suffered by the injured
persons are simple in nature. It is submitted that no role has been assigned
to the applicants and only general allegation levelled against them. It is
submitted that applicants and opposite parties are living in same village
due to this reason, they have always made quarrel with each other for
drainage system and on small things. It is also submitted that an FIR has
also lodged from the side of the applicants. It is submits that applicants
have neither concern with the said incident nor committed the said
incident as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel submits that applicants
have not committed the alleged crime. At this stage, there is no credible
evidence to link the applicants with the offence. There is no previous
criminal history of the applicants. Applicants are in jail since 23.1.2026.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the
applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse liberty of bail and
BAIL No. 11256 of 2026
2

are ready to co-operate in the trial.

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to
the applicant. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined
for about nine months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial,
more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by
the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with
the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without
commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail. Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicants-Fazal @ Bhola and Rizwan, involved in the
aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 8, 2026
Brijesh

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…