Allahabad High Court

DR NAFEESversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offence and without any showing of risk of tampering or intimidation, criminal antecedents alone do not preclude bail, so bail must be granted.

Summary

Dr. Nafees applied for bail in a case where he was not named in the FIR but was later mentioned in a second statement, with only a vague role assigned. The alleged incident involved minor injuries to two persons and there is no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offences. The State opposed bail citing the applicant's criminal antecedents, but did not show any risk of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. The Court observed that criminal history alone, without exceptional circumstances, cannot justify denial of bail and cited Supreme Court precedents. Considering the lack of evidence, the co‑accused having been granted bail, and the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention, the Court ordered his release on bail with a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, Dr. Nafees, is entitled to bail despite not being named in the FIR and having a criminal history.
Whether the absence of corroborative evidence and the risk of tampering or witness intimidation justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. Act — s. 109, 121, 124(2), 125, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 223, 299, 351(3), 352, 61(2)
C.L.A. Act — s. 7

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
FIR
second statement
criminal antecedents
no corroborative evidence
pre‑trial detention
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5318 of 2026

Dr Nafees
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Mukesh Singh, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajay
Kumar Pandey, 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 Tauheen has been granted bail
by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 42614 of 2025. The criminal history of the applicant has
been explained in Paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant
is in jail since 28.10.2025. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
BAIL No. 5318 of 2026
2

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
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 Tauheen 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 four
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.
BAIL No. 5318 of 2026
3

10. Let the applicant- Dr. Nafees, involved in the aforesaid case, be 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…