Allahabad High Court
MOHD YASEENversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted.
Summary
The applicant, Mohd Yaseen, was arrested in connection with a police party‑firing case (Crime No. 220 of 2026) alleged under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that no police personnel were injured, and that the recovery of a CMP was spurious. The State opposed bail, but the court examined the material, noted the absence of any injury and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate, and found that the case for bail was made out on a prima‑facie basis. Consequently, the court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and standard conditions. The order emphasized that breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a police party‑firing case under the Arms Act and related provisions despite the seriousness of the charges
- Whether the absence of injury to police personnel and the claim of false implication justify bail on a prima facie basis
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1)
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- police firing
- prima facie
- sureties
- no injury
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25776 of 2026
Mohd Yaseen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hasan Parvej, Hasan Sardar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.126 out of 185)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel,
learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.220 of 2026, under Sections
109(1), 3(5) BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Nawabganj,
District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
a police party firing no injury case. A false recovery of CMP has been
foisted on the applicant. The allegations are per se false and the applicant has
nothing to do with the said offence. The criminal history assigned to the
applicant has been explained. He is in jail since 20.4.2026. He undertakes to
cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not
be disputed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
BAIL No. 25776 of 2026
2
consideration the fact that no injury has been sustained by any police
personnel, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case
for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Mohd Yaseen, be released on bail in the
aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to
the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties,
with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 8, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…