Allahabad High Court
SANIYA PARVEEN @ NISHA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicants have made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The applicants, Saniya Parveen @ Nisha and Kamar Jahan, were arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 374 of 2025) and sought bail during the pendency of trial. The prosecution alleged that they participated in the assault and murder of Noor Mohammad, but the applicants claimed innocence, citing a two‑day delay in filing the FIR and the fact that two witnesses identified another accused, Anas, as the actual assailant. The applicants had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since 9 November 2025. The State opposed bail, but the court, after considering the delay in the FIR, the lack of specific incriminating evidence against the applicants, and their clean record, found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder case pending trial given the delay in filing the FIR and alleged lack of specific evidence against them
- Whether the applicants' clean criminal record and cooperation with the trial justify bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103, 115, 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- sections 103, 115, 352
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9370 of 2026
Saniya Parveen @ Nisha And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Rajput
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.15 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Rajput, learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.374 of 2025, under Sections
103(1), 115(2), 352, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Ganjdundwara, District
Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicants and other co-accused persons are
stated to have assaulted and committed the murder of Noor Mohammad on
06.11.2025 at about 6:00 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are
absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about two days, and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the
accused persons in the FIR, but subsequently, as an afterthought, two
witnesses, namely Lal Mohammad and Nazim Husain, have been roped in,
who have categorically stated that it was Anas who had stabbed the deceased
with a knife and that the applicants were only standing there; as such, the
role of the applicants is at a different footing to the co-accused Anas.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that there is no
BAIL No. 9370 of 2026
2
criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since
09.11.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants
are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR and the role of the
applicants, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case
for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicants- Saniya Parveen @ Nisha and Kamar Jahan, 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 they shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…