Allahabad High Court
SAZIDversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that, in view of the lack of direct evidence, the applicant’s clean record and extended pre‑trial detention, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Sazid in a murder case (Crime No.578 of 2024) involving alleged possession of a country‑made pistol under Section 103(1) of the IPC and Sections 3, 9, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The applicant argued that the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there is no eyewitness, and the recovered pistol cannot be linked to the crime; he also highlighted his clean record and 22 months of pre‑trial detention. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The court noted that only 4 of 20 witnesses had been examined, there was no prospect of early trial disposal, and the lack of direct evidence weakened the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, ordering release on personal bond with conditions, without commenting on the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a second application after a prior denial
- Whether the absence of eyewitness testimony and reliance on circumstantial evidence justify bail
- Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention and limited witness examination warrant bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3, 9
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- arms act
- pre‑trial detention
- second bail application
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30260 of 2026
Sazid
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Kumar, Yogendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his
first bail application was dismissed by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. vide order
dated 03.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17139 of
2025 but as His Lordship has released the instant second bail application
and this Bench is dealing with such matters therefore instant second bail
application has been listed before this Bench.
2. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.578 of 2024, under Section 103(1)
BNS and Section 3/9/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Lohiyanagar,
District Meerut, during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however this is second bail
application filed on behalf of the applicant but it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and except recovery of a country-made pistol
allegedly used in commission of the alleged crime on the pointing out of
applicant there is no other cogent evidence against applicant on record.
He further argued, there is no eye-witness account of the incident of
murder. He further argued, even alleged recovered country-made pistol
till date could not be connected with the instant crime.
5. He further submits, apart from the present case applicant was not
BAIL No. 30260 of 2026
2
having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail
since 20.11.2024 i.e. for last 22 months.
6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this
is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but could not
dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant.
7. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
8. This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his
first bail application has been dismissed on merit after considering the
fact that he was seen while he was running from the spot alongwith
country-made pistol and even country-made was also recovered from his
possession but it reflects, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
20.11.2024 i.e. for last 22 months and till date out of 20 witnesses only 4
could be examined and it reflects, there is no hope of early disposal of the
trial.
9. Further, even from the facts of the case it reflects, nobody could see the
real incident of murder and alleged recovered country-made pistol from
the possession of applicant till date could not be connected with the
instant crime.
10. Further, apart from the present case applicant was not having any
previous criminal history.
11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant - Sazid 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.
BAIL No. 30260 of 2026
3
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat
or 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 24, 2026
Shahroz
Digitally signed by :-
SHAHROJ ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…