Allahabad High Court
HASEENversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a second bail application filed by Haseen, who was implicated in Crime No. 152 of 2025 based on a co-accused's confessional statement, though his name was absent from the FIR and no weapon was recovered from him. The applicant argued that no prosecution witness had been produced, that he was falsely implicated, and that a co-accused with an identical role had already been released on bail, invoking the principle of parity. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual background. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan and the Court’s own precedent in Maya Tiwari, the judge held that the applicant was entitled to bail, especially in view of overcrowded jails and the lack of material against him. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard bond conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and lacks material evidence against him, is entitled to bail.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co-accused with an identical role creates a right to parity for the applicant.
- Whether the absence of prosecution witnesses and the filing of the charge sheet justify bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103, 109, 121, 125, 131, 132, 190, 191, 351, 50, 61
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- parity
- overcrowded jails
- false implication
- absence of prosecution witnesses
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32452 of 2026
Haseen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Abbas Shaukat Abidi, Syed Ahmed
Faizan, Syed Ali Shaukat (Abidi)
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Syed Abbas Shaukat Abidi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Roshan Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This is a second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant with a
prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2025, under
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 131, 125, 121(2), 132, 109(1), 103(1), 61(2), 50,
351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police
Station Mansoorie, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the trial. The
first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
36602 of 2025 was got dismissed as withdrawn on 16.04.2026.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not
named in the FIR; subsequently, in the confessional statement of co-accused
Abdul Salam, the name of the applicant surfaced as an accused, as the
person who came on the spot to snatch Kadir from the police party and fired
upon the police, but there is no recovery of any weapon from the possession
of the applicant. The recovery of weapons has been shown from co-accused
Nanu, Kadir, Abdul Salam, Abdul Rahman and Adil. The applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of apprehension and
doubt, though there is no material against the applicant. It is further submitted
that though the charge has been framed on 25.02.2026, but till date, not a
single prosecution witness has come forward despite several summons being
sent by the trial court.
4. It is further submitted that co-accused Mehraz, has already been released
on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 25822 of 2026 vide order dated 19.08.2026. Therefore, the applicant
having an identical role, is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of
parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal
BAIL No. 32452 of 2026
2
history of five cases. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in
the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since
27.05.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but
could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that similarly
situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts
as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of
Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of
bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the
present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Haseen, involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following
conditions:-
i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any
crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed by him.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified
BAIL No. 32452 of 2026
3
by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as
sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the
undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the
concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through Jail
Superintendent, Ghaziabad via e-mail or on e-prison portal and Trial Court
via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the
case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as
well as Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and
another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on
29.05.2026.
14. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 23, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…