Allahabad High Court

MOHD AZADversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of credible evidence linking the applicant to the offence and considering his clean record, he is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mohd Azad, who was arrested in connection with a murder case under Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated and that the informant was not an eye‑witness, with witnesses indicating a spontaneous dispute and no clear evidence linking Azad to the fatal injury. The prosecution could not produce corroborative material to establish Azad's knowledge or intent, and the applicant had no prior criminal record despite being in custody for over a year. The court found the evidence insufficient to deny bail and noted no risk of tampering, intimidation, or flight. Consequently, the court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 105 of the IPC given the lack of direct evidence and his clean record.
Whether the informant’s non‑eye‑witness status and the vague role assigned to the applicant preclude bail.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee if released.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 3(5)
Indian Penal Code — s. 105

Subjects

bail
Section 105 IPC
false implication
lack of evidence
criminal procedure
no prior criminal record
witness tampering

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3664 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh, Sarvesh Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
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. 198 of 2025, under Sections 105, 3(5)
B.N.S., Police Station- Nagra, District- Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The informant is not an eye-witness to the
alleged incident. As per the statements of witnesses namely, Dhirendra
Singh and Security Supervisor Raju Yadav, a dispute arose between the
applicant, co-accused Manoj Shah and the husband of the informant (since
deceased) over a monetary transaction, during which a physical altercation
took place, the informant's husband was assaulted by the applicant and other
co-accused. Thereafter, the informant's husband went to his house in an
injured condition and subsequently died. As per the postmortem report, the
deceased sustained four injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, injury no.1
was grievous whereas injury nos.2 to 4 were simple in nature. It is contended
that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The author
of the injury no.1 caused on the head of the deceased is not known. No prior
enmity exists between the parties. The incident had occurred at the spur of
the moment without any premeditation. The applicant neither possessed the
requisite knowledge nor any intention for committing the alleged offence. At
this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
BAIL No. 3664 of 2026
2

offence. The applicant is in jail since 20.8.2025 having no criminal history
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
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 informant is not an eye-witness to the
alleged incident. A vague and general role has been assigned to the
applicant. The author of the injury no.1 caused on the head of the deceased is
not known. There was no prior enmity between the parties. At this stage,
there is no credible evidence to establish that the applicant had the requisite
knowledge or intention to commit the alleged offence. Moreover, the
applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more
than one year and a month 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 Mohd Azad, 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 23, 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…