Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SHAHJADversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court held that the absence of cogent evidence and the minor nature of the applicant's prior cases warranted granting bail despite the circumstantial nature of the prosecution's case.

Summary

The applicant Shahjad applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 83 of 2025) involving Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the prosecution's case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, a confessional statement, and statements of co-accused, with no other cogent proof. The applicant contended that he was named in the FIR without substantive evidence and highlighted his prior five minor theft cases, all of which he was on bail. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual submissions. The court examined the nature of the evidence, noting the absence of direct material and the reliance on the applicant's confession, and considered the applicant's criminal history as minor and already subject to bail. Concluding that the lack of strong evidence did not justify continued pre‑trial detention, the court granted bail with standard conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not address the merits of the trial.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate basis for granting bail when the prosecution's case relies primarily on circumstantial evidence and a confessional statement?
  • Does the applicant's prior criminal history of minor theft cases affect his eligibility for bail?
  • Should the lack of cogent evidence against the applicant warrant his release pending trial?

Subjects

  • bail
  • circumstantial evidence
  • confessional statement
  • criminal history
  • pre‑trial detention
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Section 103(1)
  • Section 238
  • Section 61(2)
  • personal bond

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28702 of 2026

Shahjad
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Kushagra Srivastava, Saumya Srivastava,
                                Shahrukh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
                       HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed by State is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Shahrukh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh
Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), BNS,
Police Station Simbhawali, District Hapur, during pendency of the trial in
the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR but during
investigation without any cogent evidence very casually applicant has been
made accused in the present mater.

5. He further submitted that as per prosecution deceased developed illicit
relationship with the mother of the applicant and therefore, applicant
alongwith others eliminated him but except suspicion and confessional
statement of the applicant and statement of the co-accused recorded by the
Investigating Officer, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on
record.

6. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having
criminal history of five other cases but all the cases were of theft and in all
the cases he is on bail.
                                                          BAIL No. 28702 of 2026
                                 2


7. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since
10.4.2025 i.e. for last one and half year.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.

10. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR
but it reflects, during investigation applicant has been made accused in the
present matter on the basis of his confessional statement recorded by the
Investigating Officer.

11. It further reflects, except suspicion and confessional statement of the
applicant and statement of the co-accused recorded by the Investigating
Officer, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record which,
prima facie, suggests that applicant is involved in commission of the present
crime.

12. Further, however apart from the present case, applicant is having
criminal history of five other cases but his criminal history has been
explained and all the cases were of minor nature and in all the cases he is on
bail.

13. Further in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last one and half
year.

14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant-Shahjad, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
                                                                                               BAIL No. 28702 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
                                    him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
                                    with the evidence.

                                    (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

                                    17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
                                    at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
                                    bail of the applicant.

                                    18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
                                    brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
                                    said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during
                                    trial.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Ankita
                                                                                                  (Sameer Jain,J.)




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.