Allahabad High Court
NAZR ALI @ HUSAINIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the applicant was the sole accused who pointed out the dead body, rendering the case unsuitable for bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nazr Ali @ Husaini, who was charged under Sections 140(2), 103(1) and 238(a) of the BNS in a case involving the recovery of a dead body. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging that he was falsely implicated, that the recovery was a sham, and that the witnesses were interested parties. The State argued that the case was open‑and‑shut because the dead body was recovered at the applicant’s pointing out, as recorded in the inquest report. After evaluating the submissions, the Court held that the applicant, being the sole accused who led to the recovery, made the matter unsuitable for bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with a direction that the trial proceed expeditiously, citing recent Supreme Court judgments. The observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 140(2), 103(1) and 238(a) of the BNS in view of the alleged recovery of the dead body and the claim of false implication.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 140(2), 238(a)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- recovery of dead body
- criminal procedure
- Section 140
- Section 103
- Section 238
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32465 of 2025
Nazr Ali @ Husaini
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhawna Verma, Shikher Trivedi, Siya
Ram Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., P.K. Singh
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 82 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Shikher Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri P.K.
Singh, learned counsel for the informant; and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra,
learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.
3. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0038 of 2025, under Sections 140(2),
103(1), 238(a) of the BNS, Police Station Araul, District Kanpur Nagar,
during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has nothing to do with the
alleged offence.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that no separate memo has been
prepared regarding the recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the
pointing out of the applicant; thus, the alleged recovery is wholly sham. It is
also submitted that no weapon has been recovered at the instance of the
applicant. The two witnesses of the recovery of the dead body are interested
witnesses, being uncles of the informant.
6. Learned counsel has next submitted that initially, four persons were
suspected to have committed the offence, and the applicant was not named
in the FIR. It is next contended that the applicant himself accompanied the
BAIL No. 32465 of 2025
2
informant during the search for the deceased.
7. Learned counsel has further submitted that an SMS was received by the
informant prior to the lodging of the FIR at 06:29 AM, stating that the
informant's son was in their custody and demanding Rs. 10 lakhs for his
release by 05:00 PM. The informant allegedly replied at 06:30 AM seeking
account details. Hence, it is argued that the applicant has been falsely
implicated.
8. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the applicant in in jail since
07.03.2025 and has no criminal antecedents. It is assured that if released on
bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the
trial.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application, contending that it is an open-and-
shut case, as the dead body was recovered at the pointing out of the
applicant, which is duly recorded in the inquest report.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and particularly the fact that the
dead body was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant and that he is
the sole accused who led to such recovery, this Court does not find it to be a
fit case for grant of bail.
11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the
recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs.
State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of
India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
13. 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.
March 18, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…