Allahabad High Court

MOHD. DILSHADversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 30 March 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that, despite the seriousness of the allegations and procedural irregularities, the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 BNS, subject to conditions to prevent flight and witness tampering.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Mohd. Dilshad, who was charged with IPC offences 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged 17 years after the alleged offence, that his arrest was illegal because the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing, and that there was no credible evidence linking him to the alleged passport fraud. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the risk of witness tampering. The Court, after noting the procedural lapses and the lack of a strong prima facie case, held that bail could be granted subject to strict conditions, including surrender of passport and non‑tampering with evidence. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed with personal bond and sureties.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 BNS to an accused facing IPC offences 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471.
Whether the 17‑year delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case for denial of bail.
Whether the alleged failure to communicate grounds of arrest in writing renders the arrest illegal and impacts bail eligibility.
Whether the alleged passport‑related offences constitute a ground to refuse bail.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of witness tampering that justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 47, 483
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 50
Indian Penal Code — s. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
Section 483 BNS
delay in FIR
grounds of arrest
passport fraud
IPC offences
witness tampering
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8043 of 2026

Mohd. Dilshad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Wadood, Mohd.
Samiuzzaman Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Ajay Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the
record.

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Mohd.
Dilshad, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 340 of 2025, under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Afzalgarh, District
Bijnor, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail
application of the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the Addl.
Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor vide order dated 12.1.2026.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and
is languishing in jail since 9.12.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant is stated to have been involved in the murder of one
unknown person in Riyad, Saudi Arabia. He is stated to have ran away from
Saudi Arabia and reached India. A case under Section 302 IPC is stated to
have been registered against the applicant. During investigation, it came to
light that the applicant was an Indian Citizen, who had been issued Passport
No. U245289 dated 20.10.1995, which was valid up to 19.10.2005. During
investigation, it was also revealed that applicant managed to issue one more
Passport bearing No. G9619221 issued from Regional Passport Office,
Bareilly U.P. on 28.8.2008., which was valid up to 27.8.2018. It is alleged
BAIL No. 8043 of 2026
2

that on the basis of the subsequent passport, the applicant managed to travel
abroad despite a look out issued against him. The applicant is stated to have
got issued another passport bearing No. R8399542 and get a new passport
issued. The applicant is stated to have manipulated his date of birth
15.6.1973 to read as 20.2.1974 and also mentioned the name of his father as
Ziaul Haq in place of Zyaul Haq.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR is highly delayed
inasmuch as occurrence of the offence is stated to be of 28.8.2008 whereas,
the FIR has been lodged on 26.11.2025 without there being any plausible
explanation for such a gross delay of 17 years. Arguments have also been
advanced that the arrest of the applicant is illegal inasmuch as the remand
request before the Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, Disrict Bijnor was sought on
printed format and without application of mind. It is also argued that the
grounds of arrest were not informed to the applicant and reliance has been
placed on the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharasthra
and another, reported in 2026 (1) SCC 500 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
held that grounds of arrest is mandatorily required to be furnished in
writing and breach of any of the requirement would render the arrest of
the arrestee illegal entitling him to be released forthwith. The relevant
portion of the decision rendered in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) is as
under:-

"66. In conclusion, it is held that:

66.1 The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of
arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences
under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);

66.2 The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the
arrestee in the language he/she understands;

66.3 In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be
so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a
reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of
the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.
BAIL No. 8043 of 2026
3

66.4 In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent
remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be
set free.

67. After having come to the above conclusion, it is pertinent to note that
the provision of law under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (Section 47 of
BNSS 2023) does not provide for a specific mode of or time frame for
communication of the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. This Court
in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), held that the grounds of arrest be
conveyed to the arrestee in writing in all offences at the earliest, which
means it need not be given at the time of arrest but within a reasonable
time thereafter, for offences under all the statutes, which period would be
as has been laid down above in this order.

68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding
requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest
for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure
implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as
engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective
manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the
administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal
discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall
govern arrests henceforth."

It has been argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant for
prosecuting him in the alleged crime. The applicant is not guilty of preparing
any forged documents as his father's name is Zyaul Haq and if there is any
change in the pronunciation of the said name, would entail any offence. It is
accordingly submitted that no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC can be said to be made out against the applicant. It is argued that
even otherwise, the offence alleged are triable by Magistrate. Criminal
history of one case has duly been explained in Paragraph 29 of the affidavit
filed in support of the bail application, in which applicant has been enlarged
on bail vide order dated 27.3.2026, Special Judge (P.C.Act) CBI-22, Rouse
Avenue Courts, New Delhi. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
BAIL No. 8043 of 2026
4

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations,
severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima
facie, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Mohd. Dilshad, involved in above mentioned
case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and
two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.

5. The applicant will surrender his passport before Trial Court.

6. The applicant will not leave the India without prior permission of the
Trial Court.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
March 31, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…