Allahabad High Court
NOORHASANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail as the CDR evidence did not establish complicity and he had acted to assist the victim.
Summary
The applicant, Noorhasan, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 0035 of 2026) alleging false implication. He argued that the FIR was delayed, he was not named in it, and the only evidence against him was a CDR report showing conversations with co-accused Dan Singh, which he said did not prove complicity. The State contended that the CDR reports and the investigating officer’s inference showed the applicant was "hand in glove" with Dan Singh and therefore not entitled to bail. The court examined the material, noting that the applicant had no criminal history, had helped rush the deceased to the hospital, and that the CDR alone did not establish a conspiracy. Concluding that the applicant had made out a case for bail, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the CDR report and alleged conversations constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail to the accused.
- Whether the applicant's alleged involvement in the incident establishes a prima facie case of guilt warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant's claim of innocence, lack of criminal record, and assistance to the victim justify the grant of bail.
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- CDR evidence
- false implication
- accused rights
- Section 103
- Section 238
- Section 61(2)
- Section 3(5) BNS
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31926 of 2026
Noorhasan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghvendra Prakash, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Two supplementary affidavits filed by learned
counsel for the applicant are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Versha Singh,
learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law
Officer and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0035 of 2026, under Sections
103(1), 238, 61(2), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur, during
the pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by about eight hours and applicant is not
named in the FIR. The informant Dan Singh, has been made an accused
subsequently in the statement of the eye-witnesses. It is true that applicant
was in regular conversation with the co-accused person Dan Singh but the
said conversation cannot leave an inference that applicant was involved in
the said offence. There is no evidence, whatsoever, of applicant having
hatched a conspiracy to get the offence committed.
5. The truth is that dumper of the applicant hit with the car of the deceased
person accidentally, whereby the car caught fire due to the fuel i.e. CNG
BAIL No. 31926 of 2026
2
used in the said car. The applicant and co-accused person rushed the
deceased person to the hospital, which stands established by the statement of
the doctors concerned. The prime accused, if any, may be Dan Singh only.
The applicant admits that he was in regular conversation with the co-accused
person Dan Singh being his friend. Even the CDR report indicates the
conversations but does not indicate the complicity of the applicant, as there
is no conversation details or voice test report to indicate the said allegations.
6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 6.4.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
7. The applicant was hand in glove with the co-accused person, Dan Singh,
which is evident from the CDR reports and also from the inference drawn by
the investigating officer, which has been filed at page no. 121, whereby it is
mentioned that applicant and co-accused person Dan Singh had thirty-three
conversations on the date of the incident i.e. 25.2.2026 and it is also
mentioned in it that applicant did not reach the said Sanjivni Hospital, as is
evident from the CDR report, while the informant and other persons have
stated that the applicant and other co-accused persons had rushed the
deceased person to the hospital, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that applicant has simply been nominated on the basis
of CDR report; that as a bonafide act, he rushed the deceased to hospital
with the other persons, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Noorhasan, who is involved in aforementioned case
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 subject to
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
BAIL No. 31926 of 2026
3
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…