Allahabad High Court
Babu vs State Of U.P. on 10 March, 2026
Author: Santosh Rai
Bench: Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:47957
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7966 of 2026
Babu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Shamsul Islam Siddiqui, Umar Khalid
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard Shri P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rupak Chaubey, learned counsel for the State-respondent and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Babu seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.334 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 221, 132, 121(1), 121(2), 109(1), 125 and 223(B) BNS, P.S.- Kotwali Sambhal, District- Sambhal, during pendency of trial.
3. Tersely, as per allegation contained in the FIR, a mob of 700-800 unknown persons have obstructed the police personnel in their official duty and pelted stones to the police party and caused fire arm injury to the police personnel.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant is not named in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Furthermore, name of the accused-applicant surfaced on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused persons and other witnesses. He further submits that no separate or distinct role has been assigned to the accused-applicant. Furthermore, co-accused persons, namely, Fardeen, Shane Alam, Shuaib, Shujauddin @ Shajju, Mohammad Rihan, Faizan, Rihan and Mohd. Saleem and 3 Others (Mohd. Firoz, Mohd. Tehzeeb and Mohd. Shadab), having similar role, have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this court vide orders dated 06.08.2025, 08.05.2025, 24.06.2025, 29.05.2025, 08.05.2025, 08.05.2025, 26.06.2025 and 10.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.25439 of 2025, 10499 of 2025, 17652 of 2025, 17576 of 2025, 12440 of 2025, 12951 of 2025, 17593 of 2025 and 19785 of 2025 respectively. Furthermore, the accused-applicant is in jail since 25.11.2024. Furthermore, as per submission of learned AGA, chargesheet has already been filed in this case. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently 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.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. 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. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Having considered the submissions that the accused-applicant is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused persons and other witnesses, no separate and distinct role has been assigned to the accused-applicant, co-accused persons, namely, Fardeen, Shane Alam, Shuaib, Shujauddin @ Shajju, Mohammad Rihan, Faizan, Rihan and Mohd. Saleem and 3 Others (Mohd. Firoz, Mohd. Tehzeeb and Mohd. Shadab), having similar role, have already been enlarged on bail, as per submission of learned AGA, chargesheet has already been filed in this case and, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating and pressurizing the prosecution witnesses, accused-applicant is in jail since 25.11.2024 and 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 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.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.
8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
(Santosh Rai,J.) March 10, 2026 Ankit.