Allahabad High Court

AZMALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of corroborative evidence and given the prolonged pre‑trial detention, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Azmal in a case involving offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the IPC and Section 61(2) of the B.N.S. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and was only implicated through a statement of co‑accused Sayda Parveen made while in police custody, which the court found unreliable and unsupported by any independent witness or corroborative evidence. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody for over three months with no prospect of a speedy trial and found no material reason to deny bail. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the accused is implicated solely by a co‑accused’s custodial statement and not named in the FIR
Whether the prosecution has established sufficient evidence to justify denial of bail
Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or causing trial delay

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 61(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
false implication
co‑accused statement
lack of corroborative evidence
pre‑trial detention
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14493 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Mishra, Avesh Mishra
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 A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 199 of 2025, under Sections 318(4),
336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor
during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits 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 surfaced only on the basis of the
statement of named co-accused Sayda Parveen recorded while in the police
custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is
unreliable. The applicant is neither the proprietor nor in any manner
connected with the firm namely SKY Enterprises, Dhampur Road, Sherkot
Bijnor. Neither any amount was transferred from the bank account of the
aforesaid firm to the bank account of the applicant nor is the applicant a
beneficiary of the illicit transactions. Moreover, the bank account of the
applicant, Aadhar Card, Pan Card and mobile number of the applicant were
not linked with the said firm. False recovery of a Redmi mobile phone,
eleven Aadhar cards and a Voter ID card has been shown from the applicant.
There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there
is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. After the
arrest of the applicant, he has been implicated in other cases, details whereof
have been mentioned in Paragraph-22 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail
since 21.01.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said
BAIL No. 14493 of 2026
2

liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and his name was disclosed by the named co-accused
Sayda Parveen while in the police custody. There is no independent witness
to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained
confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-
sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Azmal, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of 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; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

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.

May 7, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…