Allahabad High Court

MOHAMMAD QASIMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

Mohammad Qasim was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 205 of 2026) alleging violations of Sections 318(4), 105 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the Indian Medical Council Act. He contended that he is not a doctor and was falsely implicated, noting that the deceased infant’s parents had filed statements indicating the child died while being taken to a hospital and made no accusation against him. The prosecution could not produce any corroborative evidence linking Qasim to the alleged offence and he had no prior criminal record. Having been in custody for over three months, the court found no reasonable apprehension that he would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions of not tampering with evidence, not pressurising witnesses, and appearing before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the prosecution lacks corroborative evidence linking the accused to the alleged offence.
Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Legislation cited

Indian Medical Council Act — s. 34
Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 318(4)

Subjects

bail
false implication
lack of evidence
Indian Medical Council Act
Indian Penal Code
criminal procedure
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30357 of 2026

Mohammad Qasim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mirza Ali Zulfaqar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief
Holder for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 205 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 105
B.N.S., and 34 Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station- Tanda, District-
Rampur during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The applicant is neither a doctor nor did he
perform any medical procedure or administer any medicine to the deceased
infant. During the pendency of the investigation, the father of the deceased
submitted an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and
District Magistrate, Moradabad on 10.6.2026 and 19.6.2026 stating that his
son was born at his house and that he died while being taken to the hospital.
It is next contended that neither the father nor the mother of the deceased has
made any statement before the investigating officer alleging that the delivery
of the child was conducted by the applicant. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant
is in jail since 25.6.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged
on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could
not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 30357 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that during the pendency of the investigation, the
father of the deceased submitted an application to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rampur and District Magistrate, Moradabad on 10.6.2026 and
19.6.2026 stating that his son was born at his house and that he died while
being taken to the hospital. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence
to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more
than three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so
when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State
that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence
or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I
am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant, Mohammad Qasim involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
September 29, 2026
S.S.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…