Allahabad High Court
SHADABversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as he has made out a case for bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shadab, accused in Crime No. 90 of 2025 under Sections 109(1), 352 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Arms Act. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the key witnesses had turned hostile and retracted their earlier statements, thereby eliminating any likelihood of conviction. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's submissions. The Court examined the material on record, noting the applicant's clean criminal record and his willingness to cooperate with the trial. Considering the hostile witnesses, the lack of evidential strength, and the applicant's right to liberty under Article 21, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 109(1), 352 IPC and Arms Act during the pendency of trial given the witnesses have turned hostile.
- Whether the applicant's detention violates his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 4, 5
- B.N.S. Act — s. 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Article 21
- hostile witnesses
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- fundamental rights
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15121 of 2026
Shadab
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd.Sartaz Ahmad Siddiqui, Riyaz
Ahmad Siddiqui, Shan Mohammad Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 26 out of 205)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Riyaz Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 90 of 2025, under Sections
109(1), 352, 3(5) BNS and 4/5 Arms Act, Police Station Afzalgarh, District
Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is true that applicant is alleged to be the main accused person
but both, the informant and the injured person, have been examined during
trial as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively and they have not supported the
prosecution story and have completely resiled from their earlier statements
and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them
hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present
case. The fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of
the Constitution of India stand violated.
5. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 7.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
BAIL No. 15121 of 2026
2
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
6. Learned State Law officer opposed the bail application but could not
dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
CONCLUSION:
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that the witnesses have turned hostile, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Shadab, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…