Allahabad High Court
AMAN @ IKRAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail pending trial.
Summary
The applicant, Aman @ Ikram, was not named in the FIR but was implicated in a criminal case (Crime No. 207 of 2025) based solely on the recovery of a mobile phone and SIM card belonging to the deceased. The recovery memo claimed videographic evidence under Section 105 of the B.N.S., but no such video was found, raising doubts about the prosecution's case and suggesting possible malafide intent by the former investigating officer. The applicant, who has no criminal history, had been in custody since 5 April 2025 and sought bail under Sections 103(1) and 315 of the B.N.S. The court, after noting the lack of proper evidence and the applicant’s non‑mention in the FIR, ordered an inquiry into the investigating officer and granted bail with standard conditions. The order also directed procedural compliance for the applicant’s release and referenced recent Supreme Court bail jurisprudence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and the prosecution’s evidence is based solely on recovered items without videographic documentation.
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Section 105 of the B.N.S. and possible malafide conduct of the investigating officer affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 105, 315
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 105
- recovery memo
- videography
- malafide intent
- evidence
- non‑named in FIR
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13279 of 2026
Aman @ Ikram
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohit Kumar Singh, Sujata
Choudhary
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajat Sonkar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Suresh
Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sujata
Choudhary, counsel for the first informant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 207 of 2025,
under Section 103(1), 315 of B.N.S., Police Station Lohiyanagar,
District Meerut.
3. This matter was heard on 22.04.2025. On that date, the counsel for
the applicant submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR;
subsequently merely on the basis of recovery of one mobile phone as
well as cloth of the applicant, wherein the Sim card of the deceased
was found, the applicant has been implicated, though there is no
videography of the recovery in compliance of Section 105 BNSS.
Considering the submissions, the Court directed the learned A.G.A.
to produce the pen drive of the videography of the recovery made on
the pointing out of the applicant in compliance of Section 105 BNSS.
4. In compliance of the order dated 22.04.2025, the learned A.G.A.
has produced instructions signed by concerned police officer Sumit
Tomar, Police Station Lohiyanagar, District Meerut, wherein it is
clearly mentioned that though in the recovery memo dated
BAIL No. 13279 of 2026
2
05.04.2025, it has been mentioned that videography of the recovery
was conducted by the In-charge Inspector, Vishnu Kumar Gautam,
who has been transferred to Police line but no such video or any
entry in the C.D. has been found in the record.
5. Above instructions clearly shows that not only incorrect preparation
of the recovery memo but also doubt over the entire prosecution story
as well as malafide intention on part of the earlier I.O. Vishnu Kumar
Gautam.
6. The above, negligence on part of the In-charge Inspector, Vishnu
Kumar Gautam is required to be examined by the higher officials,
therefore, the S.S.P., Meerut is directed to conduct inquiry against the
then In-charge Inspector, Vishnu Kumar Gautam regarding malafide
intention as well as negligence in preparation of the recovery memo
on pointing out of the applicant, in which he incorrectly mentioned the
conducting the videography of the recovery, though no such entry
was found in the C.D. or any videography in pen-drive or compact
drive.
7. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not
named in the FIR. The applicant has not committed any offence. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is
further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present
case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail
since 05.04.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties; taking into account
that the applicant was not named in the FIR, he has been implicated
on the basis of recovery of one mobile phone and a Sim card, also
taking into account that neither there is any public witness nor there is
any videography of the recovery and keeping in view the nature of
BAIL No. 13279 of 2026
3
offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Aman @ Ikram involved in the aforementioned
crime be released on bail, on his 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 not directly or indirectly make any 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 to
any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
12. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties
be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
13. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis
of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the
official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned
counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within
15 days.
14. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order
to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System
(BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.
BAIL No. 13279 of 2026
4
15. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
through concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or on e-prison
portal and Trial Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the
order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of
Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on
31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as Pila Pahan @
Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.
16. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order
to the S.S.P., Meerut for compliance.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 8, 2026
CS/-
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…