Allahabad High Court
NAUSHADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court held that bail must be granted despite the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's criminal history, as the material facts do not justify denial and appropriate conditions can mitigate any risk.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Naushad, who is charged under Sections 307 and 411 of the IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at police, although no police officer was injured and the applicant himself was hurt. Naushad, who has 19 prior cases and was implicated in nine cases on the day of his arrest, claimed false implication and pointed to the earlier bail granted to co‑accused Sachin Kumar. The State opposed bail but did not dispute his criminal history. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Tewari (2020) that seriousness of offence and prior cases alone do not preclude bail, the court found no material to deny liberty and ordered bail with standard conditions. The order also directed procedural steps for release via the Bail Order Management System.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with serious offences (IPC 307, 411 and Arms Act) despite a substantial criminal history.
- Whether the absence of injury to police personnel and the applicant's own injury affect the bail decision.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Prabhakar Tewari regarding bail discretion applies to the present case.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or further criminal activity.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 411
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- IPC
- Arms Act
- criminal history
- Supreme Court precedent
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15373 of 2026
Naushad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajendra Kumar Pandey, Smt. Kirti
Pandey, Vinay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, 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 in Case Crime No. 618 of 2023, under Sections 307, 411 of
I.P.C. and 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Bisrakh, District- Gautam Buddh
Nagar.
3. The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant and the co-accused are
said to have fired on the police personnel, however, no police personnel has
received any injury. On the contrary, it was the accused applicant and co-
accused Sachin Kumar, who were injured in the said incident. The applicant is
in jail since 3.8.2023 having criminal history of 19 cases. He further submits
that similarly situated co-accused Sachin Kumar has already been granted bail
by this Court vide order dated 2.1.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 47370 of 2023 (Sachin Kumar Vs. State of U.P.). It is further
submitted that in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, does not
dispute the explanation of the criminal history that has been given by the
applicant.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the record.
6. No police personnel is said to have been injured in the said incident. The
applicant although has criminal history of 19 cases but he is said to have
implicated in 9 cases on the very same day when he was arrested in the
present case.
7. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. & Another
(2020) 11 SCC 648, while considering a challenge to an order granting bail to
an accused having several cases against him, has held in paragraph 7 as
under :
"7. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has been
no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in
granting bail to the accused. The factors outlined in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,
BAIL No. 15373 of 2026
2
(2020) 2 SCC 118 for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in
the order Vikram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 5566 impugned.
The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order
impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail
is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. The
offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal
cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be
the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its
discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering
relevant materials. No ex facie error in the order has been shown by the
appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper.
We accordingly sustain the order Vikram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC
OnLine All 5566 of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, period of detention
of the applicant, which is running into more than 2 years and the fact that no
police personnel has been received any injury, I deem it fit to enlarge the
applicant on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the accused-applicant- Naushad, involved in above mentioned case
crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.
iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial
court, unless his personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
11. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
12. 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.
13. 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.
May 6, 2026
Fahad
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
FAHAD NIYAZ
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…