Allahabad High Court
FARMAN ALIAS BHOOTversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Farman alias Bhoot, who is charged under Section 109 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act for allegedly opening fire on a police party, though no police officer was injured. The applicant has a substantial criminal history, with 21 pending cases, 16 of which were explained in his affidavit, and has been in custody for more than one and a half years. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual submissions. Relying on the Supreme Court’s observations in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2024) that antecedents are only one factor and long incarceration may justify bail, the Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused who allegedly fired at police but caused no injury and has extensive prior criminal cases.
- Whether the applicant's long period of pre‑trial detention outweighs the relevance of his criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- pre‑trial detention
- Arms Act
- attempted firing on police
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38103 of 2025
Farman Alias Bhoot
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri K.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev
Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 262 of 2024, under Sections 109 BNS and Section
3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Bhamoura, District Bareilly during pendency
of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, as per allegation,
applicant and other accused opened fire upon police party but admittedly
none of the police personnel sustained any injury and admittedly it is a case
of no injury.
5. He further submits, actually police is highly inimical with the applicant
and earlier also police implicated him in 21 other cases and only due to this
reason police implicated him in the present matter. He further submits,
criminal history of 16 case of the applicant has been explained in the
affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant bail
application. He next submits, remaining five cases applicant could not
explained as deponent could not get relevant documents regarding those
cases.
6. He further submits, considering the nature of allegation made against
applicant it is not proper to withhold the bail application of applicant merely
on the basis of his criminal history.
BAIL No. 38103 of 2025
2
7. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
24.07.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years.
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
10. However, as per allegation, applicant and two others opened fire upon
police party and applicant is having criminal history of 21 other cases but
admittedly none of the police personnel sustained any injury and it appears
to be a case of no injury.
11. Further, out of 21 cases criminal history of 16 cases have been explained
in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant bail
application.
12. Further, considering the criminal history of the applicant, the argument
advanced by learned counsel for applicant that due to his previous criminal
history applicant has been made accused in the present matter cannot be
ruled out at this stage.
13. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 24.07.2024 i.e. for
last more than one and half years.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3763 in paragraph-10 observed as:-
"The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several
considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the
accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and
period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail.
There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long
incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a
given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused
are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can
grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. …"
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above and observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan
(supra), in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant - Farman @ Bhoot be released on bail in the aforesaid
BAIL No. 38103 of 2025
3
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
May 5, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…