Allahabad High Court
MOHD. ASAD ALIAS ASAADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
Bail was denied because the applicant’s likelihood of tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses outweighed any justification for release.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Mohd. Asad, who was in custody for alleged offences under multiple IPC sections and the Arms Act. The applicant claimed innocence, highlighted the long pre‑trial detention, and argued that co‑accused who faced similar charges had been granted bail. The State opposed, contending that the applicant had absconded for two years, repeatedly threatened witnesses, and posed a risk of tampering with evidence, which would jeopardise a fair trial. The court examined the statutory criteria for bail, especially the likelihood of witness intimidation and the applicant's habitual offender status. Finding that the risk to the trial outweighed the applicant's claim of innocence, the court dismissed the bail application. It directed the trial court to expedite the trial within nine months and allowed the applicant to seek bail again if the trial is not concluded within that period.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of alleged witness intimidation and risk of evidence tampering.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history and alleged threats to witnesses disqualify him from bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 3
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 323, 386, 427, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- witness intimidation
- evidence tampering
- habitual offender
- pre‑trial detention
- Criminal Procedure
- Arms Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26728 of 2025
Mohd. Asad Alias Asaad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sameer Khan, Shashi Kant
Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Chandra Kant Bharadwaj, G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Sri Sameer Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA-I appearing for the State
respondents.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of
applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.
732 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307,
308, 386, 427, 120B IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, registered at
Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the
trial.
3. It has been argued by the learned Senior counsel for the
applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely
implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail for the
last three years and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near
future as only two witnesses have been examined so far. It is
further submitted that no one has received injuries of fire arm in the
alleged incident and six co-accused Awez Ahamad@Golu, Mohd.
Aman, Mohd. Arif@Kachauli@Kachhauli, Fullu@Kullu@Nabi
Anwar, Mohd Saif@Maya, Fahad@Wasiurrahman and Imran
Guddu have already been granted bail by different co-ordinate
BAIL No. 26728 of 2025
2
Benches of this Court. It is further submitted that role of the
applicant is not distinguishable from the role of above co-accused
persons. It is further submitted that thought the applicant is having
criminal history of 18 case, however, 11 cases have been filed
against the applicant after he was arrested and only 7 cases have
been lodged prior to the present case. It is further submitted that
the first informant is also having criminal history of 19 cases and
the first informant is close relative of late Atiq Ahmad, father of co-
accused Ali and the applicant and the first informant were partners
in real estate. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes
that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been
pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the
Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
4. On the other hand, learned AGA-I has opposed the prayer for
grant of bail and it is submitted that bail application of the similarly
place co-accused Ali has been rejected by this Court and the
applicant cannot derive parity from 6 co-accused who have been
granted bail by this Court as they are not threat to the society as
the applicant remained absconded for two years and he was
arrested in the year 2023 and present FIR has been lodged in the
year 2021 and after his arrest he has been regularly threatening
the witnesses of different cases registered against him as well as
the witnesses of the present case and if he is released on bail, he
will tamper with the evidence and he will threaten the witnesses of
the present case and fair trial will be impossible as the witnesses
will be under threat.
5. As per the allegation in the FIR, co-accused Ali and some
named and 15 unknown persons are said to have surrounded the
first informant and co-accused Ali is said to have put pistol on ear
lobe of the first informant and extortion money of Rs. Five Crore is
said to have been demanded by the accused persons, however, no
one is said to have received injury in the alleged incident. Six co-
accused Awez Ahamad@Golu, Mohd. Aman, Mohd.
Arif@Kachauli@Kachhauli, Fullu@Kullu@Nabi Anwar, Mohd
BAIL No. 26728 of 2025
3
Saif@Maya, Fahad@Wasiurrahman and Imran Guddu have
already been granted bail by difference co-ordinate Benches of this
Court, however, the applicant is said to have absconded for two
years before he was arrested and it has been submitted by the
learned AGA-I that the applicant has been regularly threatening the
witnesses of different cases registered against him as well as the
witnesses of the present case, therefore, his release would be
detrimental to the fair trial and if he is released on bail, he is likely
to tamper with the evidence and one of the factors which is
required to be looked into by Court while granting bail is whether
the applicant will tamper with the evidence or not. Learned AGA-I
has submitted that two FIRs have been lodged after his arrest for
threatening the witnesses from jail in the cases registered against
him.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also
taking note of the fact that release of the applicant on bail may be
detrimental to fair trial as he is habitual offender and he is
threatening the witnesses from inside the jail and also considering
the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant and
other attending facts and circumstances of the case and without
expressing any opinion on its merit, no case for grant of bail is
made out.
7. Present application is accordingly dismissed.
8. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of nine months. In case, the trial is not concluded within the
stipulated time, the applicant shall be at liberty to approach this
Court again from grant of bail.
May 7, 2026
Abhishek
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…