Allahabad High Court
FIROZ AHAMADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court granted bail to the accused subject to personal bond, sureties and strict conditions.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Firoz Ahamad, who is accused under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC for murder. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, and that no substantive material besides personal items recovered from his wife links him to the crime. The State opposed bail, contending that innocence cannot be determined at the pre‑trial stage and that the applicant might re‑offend if released. Relying on Article 21 of the Constitution and precedents such as Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the court held that the applicant could be released on bail with stringent conditions. Accordingly, the court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties, imposing conditions to prevent evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and non‑appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case based largely on circumstantial evidence and alleged extra‑judicial confession.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
- Whether the presumption of innocence can be entertained at the pre‑trial stage for the purpose of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- circumstantial evidence
- extra‑judicial confession
- Article 21
- IPC
- pre‑trial detention
- sureties
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47629 of 2023
Firoz Ahamad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. C.S.
Saran, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant-
Firoz Ahamad seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 395 of
2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station- Karchhana,
District- Prayagraj.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant
has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely
implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 07.11.2022.
It is submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there
is no evidence against the applicant. Apart from the recovery of clothes,
driving licence and shoes on the pointing of wife of the applicant there is
no other evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted that the
applicant is said to have made extra judicial confession before the PW-4
but PW-2 has not testified to the same effect before the learned trial court.
It is further submitted that only 8 witnesses have been examined out of 19
witnesses so far and there is no likelihood that the trial would be
concluded in near future. It is argued that applicant has criminal history of
19 cases which have been explained in para 26 of the affidavit filed in
support of bail application. It is lastly submitted that there is no
reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution
witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently
BAIL No. 47629 of 2023
2
long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or
tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been
prayed for.
4. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be
adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.
It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he
may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.
5. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and applicant is said to
have made extra judicial confession before PW-2 Janardan Prasad
Vishwakarma. Apart form the wearing appearances nothing has been
recovered. As per the first information report which has been lodged
against unknown. Dead body of a person was recovered and the same has
been identified to be dead body of Sooraj Kumar, brother of the first
informant. Keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial;
larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering
paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs.
Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex
Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10
SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let
the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his
furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses.
(ii) 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 Court.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on
BAIL No. 47629 of 2023
3
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him.
(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in
order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him strictly, in accordance with law.
6. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the trial court.
7. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by
the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 18, 2026
Virendra
Digitally signed by :-
VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…