Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 28 October, 2025
Author: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:66534
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1464 of 2025
Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Arun Kumar Chauhan, Gulshan Mohla, Nidhi Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Arti Yadav, Salik Ram Tiwari
Court No. - 28
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
(Crl. Misc. Application No.01 of 2025) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Pratapgarh, whereby the First Bail Application of the appellant, Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid, in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025 (Under Section 103(1), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh) was rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid, aged about 20 years, son of Mohd. Mustafa, has been falsely implicated in this case and has been languishing in jail since 04.01.2025. The FIR was lodged on 01.01.2025 by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, naming two accused, Asif and Sahid, along with other unknown persons. Notably, the appellant, Sahid, is one of the two named accused in the FIR. The appellant's defense is that the incident is totally false and fabricated, there is no recovery made from him, and the case is one of sudden quarrel among the deceased and co-accused Ashif, Umed, and Ranjeet Singh, where co-accused Umed allegedly opened fire upon the deceased. The allegation against the appellant is limited to conspiracy. The Trial Court committed a manifest error by summarily rejecting the bail application without properly appreciating these facts.
He further submits that the principle of parity strongly applies to the appellant's case. The co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku (whose role was considered secondary, based on the confessional statement of Umed Ali), has already been enlarged on bail by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2889 of 2025 vide order dated October 9, 2025. Furthermore, the other co-accused, Umed Ali (who, according to the defense, is the one alleged to have opened fire upon the deceased), was also enlarged on bail by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2025 vide order dated October 27, 2025. Since the co-accused, irrespective of their respective roles as instigator or principal shooter, have been granted bail, the present appellant, Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid (who is named in the FIR and alleged to be the main conspirator), also deserves to be enlarged on bail on the established ground of parity, especially since the entire case against him is based on circumstantial evidence. The implication of the appellant rests on weak evidence as there is no eye witness to the offense and no recovery made from him. The appellant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, and considering the totality of the facts, the fact of co-accused's bail on parity grounds, and his prolonged detention since 04.01.2025, he deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District- Pratapgarh, arising out of Case Crime No. 01/2025, deserves to be set aside, and consequently, the appellant, Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant, Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid, is explicitly named in the FIR/initial investigation report and has been charge-sheeted for a serious offense, namely murder (Section 103(1) BNS) and offenses under the SC/ST Act against the deceased, Shivam Saroj. They asserted that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh, rightly found the crime to be of a heinous criminal nature, involving a firearm and resulting in death, which warranted the dismissal of the bail application via the order dated 04.04.2025 . Furthermore, the A.G.A. contended that the appellant's role was not merely passive, as he was specifically identified in the complaint's narrative as the main conspirator (Shahid son of Mustafa), and the prosecution evidence suggests he played a primary role in the criminal conspiracy that resulted in the death. The A.G.A. also emphasized the gravity of his direct involvement in the conspiracy and active participation in the crime. Given the seriousness and gravity of the offense, the A.G.A. argues that the rejection of bail is necessitated, notwithstanding the fact that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail.
Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., this Court finds that the F.I.R. dated 01.01.2025 (Case Crime No. 01/2025, P.S. Raniganj) was lodged by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, alleging his son was killed by a firearm. It is noted that the appellant, Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid, was named in the F.I.R. itself as one of the accused, along with Ashif and others, and is also alleged by the complainant to be the main conspirator. The implication rests on the deceased being last seen with co-accused Ashif and the body being subsequently found. Furthermore, the statement of a witness regarding the last seen circumstance is not directly substantiated by any other cogent evidence against Mohd. Sahid. Crucially, it is submitted that no recovery has been effected from the appellant. The Postmortem Report confirms death due to a single firearm injury. It is further noted that the appellant has been in jail since 04.01.2025. The Court, after considering the totality of the circumstances, including the defence plea that the actual firing was done by co-accused Umed Ali, finds the established ground of parity applicable. Most importantly, the Court notes that the co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku (whose assigned role was the lesser one of incitement/instigation), was granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2889 of 2025 on 09.10.2025. Subsequently, the co-accused, Umed Ali (who is alleged by the defence to be the actual perpetrator who opened fire), was also granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2025 on 27.10.2025. Considering the weak nature of direct evidence against the appellant, the lack of recovery, the fact that the co-accused (including the one alleged to be the shooter) have been enlarged on bail, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below rejecting the present appellant's bail application is liable to be set aside on the principle of parity.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 316/2025; Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant- Mohd. Sahid @ Mohd. Shahid, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions:-
(1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC.
In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) October 28, 2025 Haseen U.