Allahabad High Court

FARHAN RAZA KHANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Farhan Raza Khan in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43299 of 2025, relating to case No. 1146 of 2025 involving several IPC offences. The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR and was only mentioned in a later statement, with a vague role and no corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged offences, and pointed to the fact that a co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents. The Court observed that the lack of direct evidence and the absence of any material showing a risk of tampering or witness intimidation outweighed the mere fact of a past record, citing Supreme Court precedents that a history‑sheeter is not automatically denied bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to standard conditions. The order was pronounced on 19 March 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite not being named in the FIR and being implicated only in a later statement.
Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents justify denial of bail in the absence of evidence of tampering or intimidation.
Whether the lack of corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offences warrants the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.
Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 121, 124(2), 125, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 223, 299, 351(3), 352, 61(2)

Subjects

bail
criminal antecedents
false implication
FIR
second statement
lack of corroborative evidence
Indian Penal Code
Supreme Court precedent
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43299 of 2025

Farhan Raza Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, as
well as Sri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite
party, and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1146 of 2025, under Sections 190,
191(2), 191(3), 124(2), 121, 125, 352, 351(3), 109, 299, 223, 61(2) B.N.S.
and 7 C.L.A. Act, Police Station Baradari, 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 and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. As per the first information report, 28 named and 200-250
unknown persons are nominated. The name of the applicant was disclosed
by the informant in his second statement recorded on 02.10.2025. A vague
and general role has been assigned to the applicant. In the alleged incident
two persons received injuries, which were found simple in nature. At this
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. It is next contended that co-accused Dr. Nafees has been granted
bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 5318 of 2026. The applicant claims parity. The criminal
history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-2 of the
supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 27.09.2025. In case he
is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
BAIL No. 43299 of 2025
2

applicant has criminal antecedents.

5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie
opinion that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The
name of the applicant was disclosed by the informant in his second statement
recorded on 02.10.2025. A vague and general role has been assigned to the
applicant. In the alleged incident two persons received injuries, which were
found simple in nature. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused Dr. Nafees has been granted
bail by this Court.

6. Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is
not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise
adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses
before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that
applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this
Court, if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be
denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional
circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny
bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the
applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

7. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex
Court in para- 30 has observed as under:

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-
sheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is
never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard
being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
refusal of bail.

9. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five
months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Farhan Raza Khan, involved in the aforesaid case, be
BAIL No. 43299 of 2025
3

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in
view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

March 19, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…