Allahabad High Court
SAEENversusSTATE 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 Saeen, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 246 of 2025 under Section 105 of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed she was falsely implicated and that the FIR was lodged four days after the alleged incident, which she argued weakened the prosecution's case. Independent witnesses testified that the unregistered Zara Multi Specialty Hospital was operated by co‑accused Faiz Khan and Arif, and no corroborative evidence linked the applicant to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's assertions or demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Finding the applicant to be a first‑time offender with no criminal history and no reasonable apprehension of misconduct, the Court ordered that she be released on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the pending trial under Section 105 B.N.S.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence justify granting bail
- Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 105
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- lack of evidence
- witness intimidation
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35477 of 2025
Saeen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vipul Shukla, Ajay Kumar Srivastava
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. 246 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Sehramau South, District- Shahjahanpur during pendency of
the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
13.8.2025. The first information report was lodged on 17.8.2025. The delay
is fatal to the prosecution case. Placing reliance on the statements of the
independent witnesses namely, Akhilesh and Ali Mohammad, it is
contended that the said hospital known as Zara Multi Specialty Hospital was
run by co-accused Faiz Khan and Arif. The operation of the wife of the
informant was also done by them. The applicant had no knowledge that the
said hospital was not registered and the co-accused Faiz Khan and Arif were
not qualified doctors. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link
the applicant with the offence. The case of the applicant is clearly
distinguishable from that of co-accused Faiz Khan and Arif. The applicant is
a lady and is in jail since 18.8.2025 having no criminal history. In case she is
enlarged on bail, she 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.
BAIL No. 35477 of 2025
2
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the independent witnesses namely, Akhilesh and
Ali Mohammad in their statements have stated that the said hospital known
as Zara Multi Specialty Hospital was run by co-accused Faiz Khan and Arif.
The operation of the wife of the informant was also done by them. At this
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. Further the
applicant has presently remained confined for more than seven 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, Saeen involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail
on her 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.)
March 18, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…