Allahabad High Court

TAUQEERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: SIDDHARTH

Holding

The court granted bail to the applicant, subject to stringent conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered the third bail application of Tauqeer, accused in Crime No. 164 of 2023 under IPC sections 452, 302, 120‑B/34. The applicant argued that the sole witness PW‑1 did not support the allegations, that he was falsely implicated, has no prior record and has been in custody since October 2023. The State opposed bail, contending that innocence cannot be determined pre‑trial and that the applicant might misuse liberty. The court noted the one‑sided police investigation, the applicant’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024). Accordingly, the court granted bail with a personal bond, two sureties and several conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, ensure presence in court, and address any breach.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an under‑trial accused of offences under sections 452, 302, 120‑B/34 IPC pending trial.
Whether the presumption of innocence and the right to speedy trial under Article 21 outweigh the State’s concern of possible misuse of liberty.
Whether the earlier rejection of bail applications and alleged one‑sided investigation affect the bail decision.
What conditions may be imposed on bail to safeguard the trial process.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 229-A, 313, 82
Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 174-A, 229-A, 302, 34, 452

Subjects

bail
under‑trial
right to speedy trial
Article 21
IPC sections 452, 302, 120‑B, 34
CrPC sections 313, 82, 229‑A, 174‑A
false implication
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28026 of 2026

Tauqeer
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Tausif, Mohammad
Wadood, Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 43
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Heard Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant;
learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant,
Tauqeer, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 164 of
2023, under Sections 452, 302, 120-B/34 IPC, Police Station Chilkana,
District- Saharanpur, during pendency of trial.

This is third bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail
applications of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 8.5.2025 &
13.2.2026.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that before the trial court,
the informant has been examined as PW-1, who has not supported the
allegations made against the applicant. The applicant is the brother-in-law
(Jija) of the deceased. He resided in Himachal Pradesh, while the incident
took place in Saharanpur. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this
case. He has no criminal history to his credit and has been languishing in
jail since 25.10.2023. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant
by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at
pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the
BAIL No. 28026 of 2026
2

applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and
will misuse the liberty of bail.

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant;
keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided
investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being
under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex
Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement,
2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over
and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the
aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions that :-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open
for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date
fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence,
without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under
Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in
order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed
in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings
against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian
Penal Code.
BAIL No. 28026 of 2026
3

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the
Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as
abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by
the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

(Siddharth,J.)
September 11, 2026
Ruchi Agrahari

Digitally signed by :-
RUCHI AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…