Allahabad High Court
SALMANversusSTATE 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 Salman in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3576 of 2026, seeking release in a case (Crime No. 292 of 2025) under Sections 309(4) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, was falsely implicated, and that there was no independent witness, identification parade, or CCTV footage linking him to the recovered items. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The court noted that a co-accused, Islam Kadir, had already been granted bail, and that Salman had been in custody for nine months with no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court ordered Salman’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and lacks identification evidence.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
- Whether parity with a co-accused who was granted bail warrants the same relief.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 309(4), 317(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- identification parade
- CCTV
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3576 of 2026
Salman
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dewendra Singh, Mayank Kumar
Ranjan, Rajesh Prasad, Vimal Kumar Pal
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.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2025, under Sections 309(4),
317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested on
07.08.2025 along with co-accused Islam Kadir and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. False recovery of Indian currency of
Rs.24,000/-, a chain, a country made pistol and two live cartridges has been
shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. The recovered chain cannot be connected with the present offence.
No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. It
is next contended that the applicant has not been identified on the basis of
any CCTV footage. Further, no CCTV footage was collected by the
Investigating Officer. Identically placed co-accused Islam Kadir has been
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 2187 of 2026, Islam Kadir v. State of U.P. The
applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained
in Paragraph-22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and
Paragraphs-3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail
since 07.08.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said
BAIL No. 3576 of 2026
2
liberty.
4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of 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. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police
authorities. No CCTV footage was collected by the Investigating Officer.
Identically placed co-accused Islam Kadir has been granted bail by this
Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost nine
months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore,
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- Salman, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of 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.
May 5, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…