Allahabad High Court
SHAHANWAZ ALAM @ RAJAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that, based on eyewitness testimony and CCTV evidence indicating the applicant's participation in the murder, bail could not be granted.
Summary
The applicant, Shahanwaz Alam, sought bail in a murder case (Crime No.101 of 2025) alleging that he was falsely implicated and that the offence should fall under Section 105 of the IPC rather than Section 103. The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses and CCTV footage showing the applicant dragging the deceased from a vehicle and beating him with a danda, leading to death. The applicant argued lack of mention in the FIR, no prior criminal record, and that the charge sheet had already been filed, negating the need for custodial interrogation. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the strength of the eyewitness and video evidence and stating that the classification of the offence is a matter for trial, not bail. The court held that the material evidence against the applicant was sufficient to deny bail and rejected the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused under Section 103 IPC (Bailable Non-Serious) in view of the evidence.
- Whether the alleged offence falls under Section 103 or Section 105 of the IPC and its relevance at the bail stage.
- Whether the consent of the first informant is material for the grant of bail.
- Whether eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103, 105
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 103
- Section 105
- murder
- eyewitness testimony
- CCTV
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15848 of 2026
Shahanwaz Alam @ Raja
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, Ritesh Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Girjesh Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Ritesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Girjesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first
informant and Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, 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.101 of 2025, under Sections-
103(1), 352 BNS, Police Station-Jajmau, District-Kanpur Nagar,
during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the
prosecution story, initially the FIR was lodged against four accused
persons in which applicant was not named wherein the allegation has
been made that the deceased, Saleem Ahmad was the truck driver,
he went to the house of the named accused to take arrears of his
salary amounting to Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter, the accused had beaten
him which resulted into the death of the deceased. Subsequently,
three eyewitnesses, Kamil, Neeraj and Akram made specific
allegation that in their presence, the present applicant dragged out
the deceased from black Scorpio Car and started beating him
mercilessly with danda till the deceased became unconscious.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has
been falsely implicated as neither in the FIR nor in the statement of
the person who was accompanying the deceased, were any
allegation made against the applicant. It is further submitted that case
would not fall u/s 103 BNS and same would fall u/s 105 BNS. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is
BAIL No. 15848 of 2026
2
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 31.05.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that three eyewitnesses duly supported the prosecution
story and stated that it is the present applicant who came on the spot
with along with black Scorpio car and after dragging the deceased,
beaten him mercilessly with danda, and this incident was also
recorded in the CCTV camera. It is also submitted that ground of
applicant that offence alleged would not fall under Section 103 BNS
but under Section 105 BNS can be considered at the stage of trial not
at the stage of bail. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to be released
on bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant has submitted
that he has no objection if the applicant is released on bail.
7. Considering the aforesaid submission, this court is of the view that
consent of learned counsel for the first informant for releasing the
applicant on bail is not a material at all, it is the material available in
case diary as well as the stand of the State counsel which is material
for hearing the bail application. From the statement of Kamil, Neeraj
and Anwar, it is clear that deceased was mercilessly beaten by the
present applicant and incident was also recorded in CCTV camera,
therefore, this court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
8. Therefore, the bail application of the applicant is rejected.
May 18, 2026
S.C.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM CHAURASIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…