Allahabad High Court
NAZIMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nazim (applicant) in Criminal Case No. 148 of 2026 under Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the prosecution's key witnesses – the mother of the deceased (PW‑1) and the injured party (PW‑2) – gave hostile or non‑supportive testimonies, with PW‑1 declared hostile by the trial court. The applicant had been in custody since 9 May 2026, had no prior criminal record, and had been detained for over four months with no prospect of a swift trial. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Finding no reasonable apprehension of such risks and noting the hostile witnesses, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against tampering, pressurising witnesses, and non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and the prosecution case lacks substantive support.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released on bail.
- Whether the duration of pre‑trial detention without a speedy trial warrants the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105
Subjects
- bail
- hostile witness
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
- Section 105 IPC
- no criminal antecedents
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32854 of 2026
Nazim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 148 of 2026, under Sections 105 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Sahawar, District- Kasganj during pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. During trial, the informant, who is the mother
of the deceased, was examined as PW-1 and the injured Farman was
examined as PW-2. Both the prosecution witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case in their examination-in-chief. The informant PW-1 has
been declared hostile by the trial court vide order dated 8.9.2026. The
testimonies of both the witnesses are collectively annexed as Annexure S.A.-
2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 9.5.2026
having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the informant and the injured witnesses in their
examination-in-chief have not supported the prosecution case. The informant
(PW-1) has been declared hostile by the trial court. The applicant has no
BAIL No. 32854 of 2026
2
criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined
for more than four months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial,
more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by
the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the
evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the
case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Nazim involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to
the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
September 28, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…