Allahabad High Court

SUHAILversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Suhail, who was arrested in a double‑murder case under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. Although Suhail’s name did not appear in the FIR, the informant’s second statement and a later statement by the victim’s daughter identified him, but the court found those statements unreliable. The prosecution’s key physical evidence – a blood‑stained knife recovered from a public place – could not be linked to the murders or the victims’ blood. Suhail has no prior criminal record and has been in custody for five months while the investigation is complete. Weighing the doubtful prosecution case, lack of solid evidence, and Suhail’s clean record, the court concluded that he is entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in a double‑murder case where the accused was not named in the FIR but later implicated by later statements.
Whether the statements of the informant and the victim’s daughter are reliable enough to justify denial of bail.
Whether the physical evidence (the knife) establishes a prima facie case against the accused sufficient to refuse bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 61(2)

Subjects

double murder
bail
FIR
witness reliability
arms act
criminal procedure
evidentiary insufficiency

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33504 of 2026

Suhail
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Bharti
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B.
Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) BNS
and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad
during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, it is a case of double
murder but applicant was not named in the FIR. He further submits, when
the statement of informant was recorded during investigation then in his first
statement also he did not disclose the name of applicant and when his second
statement was recorded then he disclosed the name of applicant by stating
that applicant is nephew of named co-accused Faheem.

5. He further submits, subsequently during investigation after 19 days
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of some witnesses including
witness Aksha, the daughter of the deceased persons and in her statement
she started claiming herself to be the eye witness and she also disclosed the
name of applicant and also stated against applicant but even from her
statement prima facie it appears, she could not see the real incident and it
reflects, as earlier informant i.e. her uncle had disclosed the name of
applicant, therefore, she after 19 days also disclosed the name of applicant
and no reliance can be placed on her statement. He further submits, even
BAIL No. 33504 of 2026
2

from her statement which has been annexed along with instant bail
application it reflects, she is not reliable witness.

6. He further submits, however, as per prosecution, when applicant was
arrested then on his pointing out one blood stained knife was also recovered
but alleged knife was recovered from an open place which was accessible to
all and even till date the alleged recovered knife could not be connected with
the instant crime and there is no evidence that the alleged blood found on the
knife was of the deceased persons.

7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 23.04.2026 i.e. for last five months and
investigation of the case has been completed.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, it is a
case of double murder but could not dispute the other argument on facts
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.

10. However, it is a case of double murder but applicant was not named in
the FIR. Record further suggests that when first statement of informant was
recorded then he did not disclose the name of applicant and reiterated the
version of the FIR which suggests, he immediately after the incident arrived
at spot and witnessed the accused persons. It reflects, subsequently when his
second statement was recorded then he first time disclosed the name of
applicant.

11. Further, it appears, after the statement of informant when after 19 days
from the date of FIR statement of Aksha, the daughter of the deceased
persons was recorded then she started claiming herself to be the eye witness
and she stated against the applicant but her statement prima facie does not
appear to be convincing. Further, it also reflects, she was also not the eye
witness. Record further suggests, when after receiving information on Dial
112 police arrived at spot then before police also informant stated that some
persons have committed the murder of the deceased persons and before
police he did not disclose the name of applicant.

12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case prosecution
case prima facie appears to be doubtful.
BAIL No. 33504 of 2026
3

13. Further, as per prosecution, however when applicant was arrested then
on his pointing out one blood stained knife was also recovered but it reflects,
the recovery of knife was made from an open place which was accessible to
all. Further, the alleged knife till date could not be connected with the instant
crime as there is no evidence that the blood found on the knife was of the
deceased persons.

14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present
matter he is in jail since 23.04.2026 i.e. for last five months and
investigation of the case has been completed.

15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant - Suhail be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.

19. 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.

September 21, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…