Allahabad High Court
SAMEERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Sameer, who was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 142 of 2024) involving charges under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 302. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing to contradictions between the FIR and witness statements regarding the weapon he allegedly used, and highlighted that a co‑accused juvenile had already been granted bail while he had been in custody for over two and a half years. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the applicant’s alleged role in the assault and the seriousness of the injuries leading to death. After reviewing the evidence, the court found the matter suitable for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits and ordered the applicant’s release on a personal bond with conditions. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial within a year.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the offences and the evidence?
- Does the presence of contradictions in the FIR and witness statements affect the bail decision?
- Should the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention and the bail granted to a co‑accused juvenile influence the grant of bail?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
- B.N.S.S.
- IPC offences
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42124 of 2025
Sameer
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.Z.Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri A.Z. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant who has filed
supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, Sri B.P. Singh, learned
AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a
prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 142 of 2024 under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 IPC registered at Police Station
Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.
3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. states that notice has been served
upon the first informant.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case and as per the FIR, co-
accused Anas is said to have given a stab wound to the deceased whereas
the applicant has been assigned the role of assault by iron rod. However,
the injured eye witness Mijan has stated that applicant was armed with
iron wheel (chakri) and three other accused persons were armed with
lathi. As per the postmortem report of the deceased, multiple abrasions
have been found on various parts of his head and one stitch wound has
also been found on his abdomen and the cause of his death is trauma due
to ante mortem injuries. It is further submitted that applicant is
languishing in jail for the last two and a half years i.e. 30.3.2024 and the
trial is not likely to conclude in near future. It is further submitted that co-
BAIL No. 42124 of 2025
2
accused Anas has been declared juvenile and has been granted bail. It is
also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the
liberty, if granted.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail
to the applicant and submits that applicant has been assigned the role of
assault by iron rod in the FIR and, during investigation, the injured eye
witness Mijan has stated that applicant was armed with iron wheel and
other accused persons were assigned the role of assault by lathi and the
cause of death of the deceased Adnan has been shown as shock and
hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. It is further submitted by him
that death of the deceased has resulted due to all the injuries caused and
not a particular injury of stab wound.
6. As per the FIR, co-accused Anas is said to have given a stab wound to
the deceased Adnan whereas the applicant and other accused persons are
said to have assaulted the deceased and the injured by iron rod. However,
during investigation, the injured Mijan has stated before the Investigating
Officer that the applicant was armed with iron wheel and rest of the
accused persons Irshad, Chand and Sameel were armed with lathi. The
postmortem report of the deceased shows multiple injuries on his head
and one stitch wound on his abdomen apart from multiple abrasions on
shoulder and other non-vital parts. There appears to be contradictions in
the version of the FIR as well as in the statement of the injured witnesses
regarding the weapon assigned to the applicant. During investigation,
other accused persons Irshad, Chand and Sameel have been exonerated
and their names do not find mention in the chargesheet. Applicant has
criminal history of one case and he has been languishing in jail since
30.3.2024.
7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I
find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is
ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant Sameer involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with
BAIL No. 42124 of 2025
3
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose
of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be
absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of
evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
11. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case
as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 17, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…