Allahabad High Court
ALEY HASANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Aley Hasan applied for bail in a case (Crime No. 209 of 2026) alleging violations of the Cow Slaughter Act and the Arms Act, stemming from an alleged firing on police where no police officer was injured but a co-accused, Javed, sustained a leg injury. The applicant claimed the recovered pistol, cartridges, and cow meat were planted and that there was no independent witness or forensic report linking him to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's submissions. The court observed that, prima facie, there was no injury to police, no corroborative evidence against the applicant, and that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail. Considering the applicant had been in custody for nearly two months and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the court ordered his release on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, Aley Hasan, is entitled to bail despite the charges under the Cow Slaughter Act and Arms Act.
- Whether the lack of police injury, absence of independent witnesses, and parity with a co-accused who was granted bail justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3, 4
- Cow Slaughter Act — s. 109 B.N.S., 3/5A/8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- Cow Slaughter Act
- false implication
- parity
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34583 of 2026
Aley Hasan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anees Baig
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned
Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on
record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 209 of 2026, under Sections 109 B.N.S.,
3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and 3/4/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station-
Amanpur, District- Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is a case of firing on the police party. No
police personnel has received any injury. In fact, the co-accused has received
injury on his right leg. False recovery of a country made pistol, a live
cartridge and an empty cartridge has been shown from the applicant.
Recovery of cow meet has also been shown from an open place which does
not belong to the applicant. The alleged recovery is also false and planted.
There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. There is no F.S.L.
report to establish that the substance seized is prohibited cow meat. It is next
contended that identically placed co-accused Javed has been granted bail by
this Court vide order dated 25.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.34262 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of
the applicant has been explained in paragraph-9 of the bail application. The
applicant is in jail since 02.8.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will
not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
BAIL No. 34583 of 2026
2
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 no police personnel has received any injury. In
fact, the co-accused Javed has received injury on his right leg. There is no
independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically
placed co-accused Javed has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the
applicant has remained confined for almost two 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 delay the trial 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 Aley Hasan, involved in the aforesaid case be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions
that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
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.
September 29, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…