Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD DANISHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Mohammad Danish applied for bail in a case (Crime No. 52 of 2026) alleging violations of Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The applicant contended that the recovery of cow remains, meat and alleged slaughtering instruments was fabricated and that there were no independent witnesses or corroborative evidence linking him to the offences. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The High Court, after examining the record, found that the prosecution’s case was prima facie weak, the applicant had no prior criminal record, and there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, pressurising witnesses, and mandating appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the Arms Act and the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the absence of independent witnesses and corroborative evidence creates a reasonable ground to deny bail.
- Whether there is a risk of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 4
- Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 — s. 3, 5, 8
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act
- false implication
- evidence
- criminal procedure
- surety
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11274 of 2026
Mohammad Danish
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Charan Singh, Dilnawaz Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 52 of 2026, under Sections 4/25 Arms
Act and Section 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police
Station- Saraimeer, District- Azamgarh during pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The alleged recovery of cow remains, meat
and instruments purportedly used for slaughtering has been falsely planted
from the house of the applicant as well as from the Auto used by him. There
is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant
is in jail since 26.2.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged
on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal history. Further the
applicant has presently remained confined for more than one month and
BAIL No. 11274 of 2026
2
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 intimidate the
witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Mohammad Danish involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
April 20, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…