Allahabad High Court
SHADAB AHMAD @ SADDAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed off/Decided on merits
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, on a prima facie basis, the applicant had made out a case for bail as the CCTV footage showed no active participation in the assault, and mere presence does not warrant denial of bail.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Shadab Ahmad @ Saddam in a case under IPC Sections 103(1) and 352, alleging assault on the informant's father. The applicant claimed innocence, citing a delayed FIR, lack of eyewitnesses, and CCTV footage that showed he was present but did not take part in the assault. The prosecution argued that his presence indicated a common intention with the co‑accused. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., the court held that pending cases do not bar bail if the applicant’s case is otherwise made out. Finding the prima facie evidence insufficient to deny bail, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant’s presence at the scene and alleged common intention justify denial of bail
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and absence of eyewitness testimony affect bail eligibility
- Whether CCTV footage showing no active participation supports granting bail
- Whether pending criminal cases against the accused preclude bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- assault
- CCTV evidence
- delay in FIR
- common intention
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44358 of 2025
Shadab Ahmad @ Saddam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, Ritesh
Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Phool Singh Yadav
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.31 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant
as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.101 of 2025, under Sections
103(1), 352 BNS, Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar, during the
pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are
stated to have assaulted the father of the informant on 29.5.2025 at about
02:31 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. There is no eye-witness account of the incident. The person
who had gone with the deceased person to the place of occurrence is stated
to be one Akeel, but he ran away from the place of occurrence.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the role of
catching hold has been assigned to the applicant in the FIR, but subsequently
the CCTV footage was fetched in which the applicant is only seen at the
BAIL No. 44358 of 2025
2
place of occurrence while he has not played any active part in the incident,
as such, he is entitled to bail.
7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the active role
is stated to have been played by Shahnawaj @ Raja and his brother Shoeb @
Sonu. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been
explained. The applicant is in jail since 30.5.2025. He undertakes to
cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant
was present at the place of occurrence, as such, he was hand in glove with
the co-accused persons and his common intention is but evident from the
circumstances.
9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another,
2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases
against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his
case of bail is made out.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that in the CCTV footage the applicant is not visible
playing any active role in the incident, and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant- Shadab Ahmad @ Saddam, be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he
shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
before the trial court as required.
12. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 18, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…