Allahabad High Court
NAZIMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
Bail was denied because the applicant’s serious criminal antecedents, possession of the weapon, and the imminent conclusion of trial distinguished his case from co‑accused who were granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nazim, accused under IPC sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1) and the Arms Act in a murder case where a country‑made pistol was allegedly recovered from his possession. The applicant argued innocence, pointed to bail granted to three co‑accused, and highlighted lack of eyewitnesses, while the prosecution emphasized his extensive criminal record, possession of the weapon, and the imminent conclusion of trial. The court noted that the applicant’s history of serious offences and the material evidence against him distinguished his case from the co‑accused who were released on bail. Without passing on the merits, the court found no ground to grant bail and dismissed the application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within four months. The applicant was permitted to file a fresh bail petition if the trial is not concluded within that period.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the seriousness of the offences and his criminal antecedents
- Whether the applicant’s case is distinguishable from co‑accused who have been granted bail
- Whether the stage of trial and imminent conclusion affect the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- serious offences
- criminal history
- possession of weapon
- trial expeditious
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41589 of 2025
Nazim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Irshad Ahmad, Ziauddin Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Mishra, G.A.,
Nasiruzzaman
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ziauddin Farooqui, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
B.P. Maurya, learned AGA appearing for the State respondents and Sri
Ajay Kumar Mishra and Sri Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the
first informant.
2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant with a
prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2025, under
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Ac,
registered at Police Station Rehra, District Amroha, during pendency of
the trial.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further submitted three co-accused Qamar Khan, Saleem and Rehan have
already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the
role of the applicant is not distinguishable from the role of above co-
accused. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the
occurrence and so-called eyewitnesses have reached the place of the
occurrence after the incident was over and he has been languishing in jail
since 13.2.2025 and he is having criminal history of 18 cases and in all
the cases he is on bail. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes
that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out
that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no
likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
BAIL No. 41589 of 2025
2
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant and learned
AGA have opposed the prayer for grant of bail and it is submitted that the
case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused who
have been granted bail as the applicant is having long history of criminal
case including murder, attempt to murder and rape and weapon of offence
i.e. country-made pistol is said to have been recovered from the
possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that the trial is at the
stage of conclusion as the I.O. remains to be examined before the trial
Court and 30.9.2026 is fixed for his examination. It is lastly submitted
that in all likelihood, trial is due to conclude in near future.
5. As per allegations in the first information report, the applicant and five
other co-accused are said to have opened fire on the deceased as as result
of which the deceased succumbed to injuries. Post-mortem report shows
the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:
(1) Entry wound lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 7 cm over left side of
skull 6 cm above left ear pinna, blackening and tattooing and present, hair
chormed and margin everted.
(2) Found of metallic bullet right side upper part of face 8 cm medial to
right ear opening.
(3) Firearm wound of entry size 2 cm x 2 cm right side of skull 8 cm
above right ear pinna, margin are everted.
(4) Firearm would of entry size 15 cm x 15 cm left side of skull, margin
are everted left parietal temporal bone, occipital fracture. Brain matter
over imposed and lacerated.
Cause of death has been shown as ante-mortem injuries of fire arm.
During investigation, weapon of the offence i.e. country-made pistol is
said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. co-
accused Qamar Khan, Saleem and Rehan have already been granted bail
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, however, nothing incriminating has
been recovered from their possession and they were having no criminal
history, therefore, the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the
above co-accused who have been granted bail. The applicant is having
BAIL No. 41589 of 2025
3
long history of criminal case involving serious offences like murder,
attempt to murder and rape and as submitted by the learned counsel for
the first informant and the AGA trial is likely to be concluded in near
future as the I.O. remains to be examined before the trial Court.
6. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant
and other attending facts and circumstances of the case and without
expressing any opinion on its merit, no case for grant of bail is made out.
7. Present application is accordingly dismissed.
8. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the
case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four
months provided the applicant cooperates in the trial.
9. The applicant shall be at liberty to move this Court for grant of bail
afresh if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 18, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…