Allahabad High Court
TUFANI NISHAD @ MUNEESversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the limited examination of prosecution witnesses does not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances to grant bail when the trial is likely to conclude shortly.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Tufani Nishad @ Munees in a criminal trial (Crime No.129 of 2025) under Sections 140(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant argued that three of eight prosecution witnesses had already been examined and had given mixed responses, and that he had been in custody since 1 September 2025 with no risk of fleeing. The State opposed, contending that the trial was nearing conclusion. The Court held that the examination of three witnesses did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances to merit bail, especially as the trial was likely to finish soon and the mixed testimony did not indicate a high probability of acquittal. Consequently, the Court rejected the second bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the examination of three out of eight prosecution witnesses amounts to a material change in circumstances justifying bail under Sections 140(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Whether the likelihood of the trial concluding shortly precludes the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 140(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- change of circumstances
- criminal trial
- prosecution witnesses
- pre-trial detention
- Indian criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31408 of 2026
Tufani Nishad @ Munees
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Kumar Nishad, Ashutosh Kumar
Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on record.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-
applicant/ Tufani Nishad @ Munees for grant of bail, in Case Crime
No.129 of 2025, under Sections 140(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mishrauliya, District Siddharth Nagar,
during pendency of trial.
3. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail
application filed by the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order
dated 26.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44302 of
2025. The new ground urged by the applicant in the present application
for seeking enlargement on bail is that, out of the eight prosecution
witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined on 07.07.2026.
Learned counsel further submitted, that the witnesses so far examined
have given a mixed response to the prosecution case. Learned counsel for
the applicant further submits that, the accused-applicant is languishing in
jail in this matter, since 01.09.2025 and there is no likelihood that, the
accused-applicant, after release on bail, may flee from the process of law
or will misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail
of the applicant and submitted that the trial is likely to be concluded
BAIL No. 31408 of 2026
2
shortly.
6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and the fact that
three out of eight prosecution witnesses have been examined during the
pendency of the trial, by itself, cannot be treated as a sufficient change in
circumstance and the trial is likely to be concluded shortly. The mere fact
that the witnesses examined so far have given a mixed response to the
prosecution case is not sufficient, at this stage, to record any finding in
favour of the accused-applicant. Moreover, the corroboration by the
witness is not of such nature, that the accused persons would be acquitted
or likely to be acquitted in all probability. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the stage of the trial and the fact that the trial is
likely to conclude shortly, this Court does not find any good ground to
enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. Accordingly, the present second
bail application is hereby rejected.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
September 9, 2026
Mini
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…