SHER ALIversusSTATE OF U.P.

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34574 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :   Anil Kumar, Mohit Singh, Ravi Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :   G.A.

Court No. - 55
                       HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has
no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is driver of the truck,
which was transporting 525 bags of Urea. The same was intercepted by the police and
District Agriculture Officer. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The applicant is not the owner of the goods in question. The co-accused-Syopal
Singh and Aslam have already been enlarged on bail by this Court by orders dated
16.7.2026 and 14.8.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 22583 of
2026 and 26658 of 2026. Applicant seeks parity. The criminal history of applicant has
been explained in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit. Applicant is
languishing in jail since 11.5.2026 and in case he is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute
factual matrix of the case.

5. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the
applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court
with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal
cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in
para 30 has observed:-

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we
may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But,
it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in
respect of which he has been booked."
                                                                    BAIL No. 34574 of 2026
                                      2

6. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC
648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases
against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

7. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of
the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the
investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The
State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the
process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be
denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on
the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the
Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he
had criminal antecedent.

8. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by
Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The
said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has
not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the
applicant.

9. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State
that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such
character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that
accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the
accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the
applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other
troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have
been shown by learned AGA for the State.

11. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the
accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant Sher Ali involved in Case Crime No. 206 of 2026, under
Sections 318(4), 61(2), 336(3), 338, 316(5), 340(2) B.N.S., Section 3/7 Essential
Commodities Act and Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station
Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahr be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
                                                                                                     BAIL No. 34574 of 2026
                                                                         3

                                    subject to the following conditions:-

                                    i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

                                    ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

                                    iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal
                                    presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for
                                    interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

                                    iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is
                                    accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

                                    v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

                                    vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

                                    vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform
                                    the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

                                    14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty
                                    to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    D. Tamang
                                                                                                  (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad