Allahabad High Court

NADEEMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as there is no evidence linking him to the offence and no risk of tampering or intimidation.

Summary

The applicant Nadeem filed a bail application in a case involving alleged looting of Rs.1.20 crore, a pistol, cartridges and cash, claiming he was not named in the FIR and that the recovered items were falsely linked to him. The prosecution could not produce any independent witness or corroborative evidence connecting the applicant to the offences, and the co‑accused had already been granted bail. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody for over four months with no prospect of a speedy trial and found no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and lacks corroborative evidence, is entitled to bail.
Whether the risk of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 3
Indian Penal Code — s. 310(2), 311, 317(3), 331(8), 61(2)

Subjects

bail
FIR
false implication
arms act
criminal procedure
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34161 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Sharma, Prashant Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar 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.73 of 2026, under Sections 331(8),
310(2), 311, 317(3), 61(2) BNS and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police
Station- Nagphani, District- Moradabad, during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The first information report was lodged against unknown persons with the
allegation that Rs.1,20,00,000/-, which was kept in the house of the
informant for execution of sale deed of a plot was looted along with gold
ornaments. False recovery of a country made pistol, two live cartridges and
Indian currency of Rs.2,50,000/- has been shown from the personal
possession of the applicant and Rs. 17,05,000/- has been shown from a car,
which does not belong to the applicant. The alleged recovery is false and
planted. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The
applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted
on behalf of such syndicate. Further, co-accused Kuldeep Kumar and Ravi
Kumar have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.09.2026
and 14.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.31656 of 2026
and 30647 of 2026 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The applicant
is in jail since 17.5.2026. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in paragraph nos.18 to 21 of the bail application and in case he is
BAIL No. 34161 of 2026
2

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 applicant was not named in the first
information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.
At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. Co-accused Kuldeep Kumar and Ravi Kumar have been granted
bail by this Court. 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, Nadeem 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.

October 1, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…