Allahabad High Court
ABRARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding that the circumstances justified release on personal bond and sureties.
Summary
The applicant, Abrar, filed a second bail application in a criminal case (Crime No. 249 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 5g/6 of the POCSO Act. The first bail plea was rejected because of the victim's injury, but subsequently three key witnesses, including the informant and two victims, turned hostile after being cross‑examined. The applicant argued that the hostile testimony removed any likelihood of conviction and pledged cooperation with the trial. The State opposed bail but did not contest the applicant's submissions. Considering the hostile witnesses and the absence of a clear case against the applicant, the court held that bail was warranted and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when principal witnesses have turned hostile and the likelihood of conviction is minimal
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- hostile witnesses
- criminal procedure
- B.N.S. Act
- POCSO Act
- Section 137
- Section 70
- Section 351
- personal bond
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32516 of 2026
Abrar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Asheesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.2 out of 291)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Asheesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.249 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 70(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and 5g/6 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station
Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that this is the second bail
application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected on account
of the injury sustained by the victim V1, but subsequent thereto, three
witnesses of fact have been examined, including the informant and the two
victims as PW-2 and PW-3, and they have completely resiled from their
earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor
after being declared hostile. There is no likelihood of the applicant’s
conviction in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 08.06.2025 and
he is ready to cooperate with the trial and undertakes not to misuse the
liberty of bail if released.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
BAIL No. 32516 of 2026
2
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that the informant and the two victims, i.e. PW2 and
PW-3, have turned hostile, and without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made
out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Abrar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to
verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 16, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…