Allahabad High Court

DILSHAD SHABBANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no specific apprehension of tampering or intimidation and the allegations against him are vague.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dilshad Shabban, who was not named in the original FIR but was later implicated during investigation in a case involving multiple IPC offences and other statutes. The applicant argued that the allegations against him were vague, he had no criminal history, and co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court found that the applicant’s name surfaced only after the FIR, there was no specific evidence of risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and the applicant had been in custody for over a month with no prospect of a speedy trial. Accordingly, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to standard conditions and sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and faces vague allegations, is entitled to bail.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released.

Legislation cited

Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 120B, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153A, 188, 304, 307, 332, 336, 353, 427, 436, 504, 506
Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act — s. 2/3

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
IPC
false implication
prima facie
surety
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16388 of 2026

Dilshad Shabban
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Tripathi, Shantanu
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 449 of 2019,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 307, 188, 336, 353, 427, 151,
436, 304, 120B, 109, 153A, 504, 506 I.P.C., 2/3 Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act & 7 Criminal Law Amendment
Act, Police Station- Nehtaur, District- Bijnor during pendency of
the trial.

3. 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. As per the first information report,
nine named accused and 550 to 600 unknown persons are
nominated. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course
of investigation. Co-accused Kamar Ahmad, Javed and
Shamshuddin were arrested at the spot. During the course of
investigation two persons namely Anas and Suleman, who had
suffered injuries in the alleged incident, died. Thereafter, section
304 I.P.C. was added. It is next contended that the father of the
BAIL No. 16388 of 2026
2

deceased Anas also filed an application levelling allegations
against the police personnel. The said application is also part of
the case diary. Vague and general allegations have been levelled
against the applicant. The applicant came to know about the
pendency of the present proceeding only on 12.10.2025. The
named co-accused Kamar Ahmad and Mohd. Yunus have been
granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.6.2020 and
11.05.2026 passed in Criminal Application Bail No.14718 of
2020 (Kamar Ahmad vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 14763 of 2026 (Mohd. Yunush v. State of U.P.).
The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since
25.03.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on
bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

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

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not
named in the first information report. The name of the applicant
surfaced during the course of investigation. Vague and general
allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The named
co-accused Kamar Ahmad and Mohd. Yunus have been granted
bail by this Court. Further the applicant has presently remained
confined for more than one month and there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, more so when 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
intimidate the witness, 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- Dilshad Shabban, involved in the aforesaid
case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court
concerned on the following conditions that:
BAIL No. 16388 of 2026
3

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the
trial court.

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 14, 2026
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…