Allahabad High Court
ADILversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, Adil, sought bail in a murder case (Crime No. 393 of 2024) under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed he was falsely implicated and that no incriminating material existed against him. The prosecution presented eye‑witness statements, CCTV footage showing Adil with the deceased at the crime scene, and recovered a blood‑stained knife and the motorcycle used. The court examined the reliability of the witnesses and the forensic evidence, concluding that the material indicated a prima facie case against the applicant. Consequently, the court found that the applicant did not merit bail during the trial. The bail application was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Sections 103(1) and 238 IPC during the pendency of the trial.
- Whether the eye‑witness testimonies, CCTV footage, and recovered items establish a prima facie case justifying denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant's claim of false implication and lack of incriminating material is credible.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 238
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC Section 103
- IPC Section 238
- eye witness
- CCTV evidence
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7381 of 2025
Adil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ayush Mishra, Prabha Shanker Mishra,
Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Umar Farooq
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Anurag Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 393 of 2024, under Sections-103(1) & 238
B.N.S., Police Station- Chandpur, District- Bijnor, during the pendency of the
trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been
falsely implicated, though, there is no incriminating material against him. As
per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused Nazim came to the house of
the first informant on 04.08.2024 at 8 p.m. and taken away the brother of the
first informant. The brother of the first informant did not return next day and
his body was found. The FIR witnesses, Rashid and Farman also stated that
they had seen the deceased and present applicant going on apache motorcycle
and the co-accused Nazim was standing at some distance. However, another
eye witness Rashid has stated that he had seen the applicant, co-accused Nazim
and deceased together going through a motorcycle. During investigation, police
also recorded statement of one Monu, who was working at Chaudhary
Automobile. He stated that he has lastly seen the deceased along with Adil on a
motorcycle at 10.57 p.m. During investigation, police also obtained CCTV
footage near the place where the dead body was found and CCTV footage
shows that at 10.57 p.m. on 04.08.2024 Adil and deceased came at that place
and subsequently, at 11.41 p.m. Adil returned back alone on Apache
BAIL No. 7381 of 2025
2
motorcycle. Thereafter, Adil was arrested and on his pointing out, one blood
stained knife and motorcycle, which was shown in the CCTV, were
recovered. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail
since 01.09.2024. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A.
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Farman and
Rashid had seen the deceased in the company of the applicant at 8.30 p.m. on
04.08.2024, subsequently, eye witness Monu had also seen the present
applicant and deceased on the motorcycle at 10.15 p.m. on 04.08.2024 and
further CCTV shows that at 11.41 p.m. on 04.08.2024, the applicant was
coming back on motorcycle alone. Therefore, there is last scene evidence
showing the deceased in the company of the applicant. It is further submitted
that on the pointing out of the applicant not only blood stained knife but also
apache motorcycle, which was used by the applicant to take the deceased from
his house to the place where deceased was found, was also recovered.
Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that there is eye
witnesses and the deceased was seen in the company of the applicant, the
applicant has lastly taken the deceased at the place where dead body was found
and returned back alone, the motorcycle shown in the CCTV footage along
with blood stained knife have also been recovered, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present
application is Rejected.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
April 20, 2026
gp
Digitally signed by :-
GANESH PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…