Allahabad High Court

ISLAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court granted bail to the applicant, finding no sufficient evidence linking him to the offence and no justification to deny bail solely on his criminal history.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Islam, who was charged under Sections 3, 5A and 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11Gha of the Animals Cruelty Act. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and was only implicated by a co‑accused’s statement, which the court found unreliable and lacking corroborative evidence. The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents, but did not demonstrate any risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. Citing Supreme Court precedents that a history‑sheeter is not automatically denied bail and that multiple pending cases do not justify refusal, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, non‑interference with evidence, and regular police station visits.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, not named in the FIR and lacking corroborative evidence, is entitled to bail despite criminal antecedents.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history alone justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Animals Cruelty Act — s. 11Gha
Cow Slaughter Act — s. 3, 5A, 8

Subjects

bail
criminal antecedents
FIR
co‑accused testimony
Cow Slaughter Act
Animals Cruelty Act
Indian criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12219 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikrant Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on
record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.179 of 2024, under Sections 3/5A/8 of
Cow Slaughter Act and 11Gha of Animals Cruelty Act, Police Station-
Akbarpur, District- Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Mohd. Moonis while
in police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant,
is unreliable. The applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery. At this
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph-
23 of the bail application and paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit.
The applicant is in jail since 24.02.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail,
he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
applicant has criminal antecedents.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused
BAIL No. 12219 of 2026
2

Mohd. Moonis while in police custody. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence.

6. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the
case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely
influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or
during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in
past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if
the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail
only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the
basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused,
hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on
the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex
Court in para 30 has observed:-

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-
sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is
never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard
being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
refusal of bail.

9. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than one and half
month and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, without commenting
on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to
be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Islam, involved in the aforesaid case be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of
criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to conditions that he:

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

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
BAIL No. 12219 of 2026
3

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and

(v) shall appear on first Sunday of every month at the Police Station
concerned.

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

April 20, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…