Allowed¶11

Nizamuddin @ Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2025/3523/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; Section 307 I.P.C.; Case Crime No. 209/2018, P.S. Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur; F.I.R. dated 19.08.2018; motorcycle interception by police; pistol recovery; prolonged incarceration of about seven years against ten-year maximum sentence; only one prosecution witness examined; personal bond and two sureties; conditions against tampering with evidence and pressurizing witnesses; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; order dated 4.8.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:45215.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) no tampering with prosecution evidence; (ii) no pressurizing prosecution witnesses; (iii) appearance on every date fixed by the trial court unless exempted. ¶11

Nizamuddin @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to release on bail in Case Crime No. 209/2018 under Section 307 I.P.C., having been in custody since 19.08.2018 (about seven years) against a maximum sentence of ten years, with only one prosecution witness examined.

¶10

Court's answer

Considering that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 19.08.2018, the offence alleged carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment up to ten years, about seven years have already been served, and only a single prosecution witness has been examined till date, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, without making any observation affecting the merits of the case.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses, and shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his appearance is exempted.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 13 (Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.), by order dated 4.8.2025 [Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:45215] allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3523 of 2025 filed by Nizamuddin @ Raju seeking bail in Case Crime No. 209/2018, Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur, under Section 307 I.P.C. The F.I.R., lodged on 19.08.2018, alleged that three persons riding a motorcycle were intercepted by police; two escaped, the applicant was hit by a gunshot fired by the police and arrested, and a pistol was recovered from him. Granting bail, the Court relied on the fact that the applicant had been languishing in jail since 19.08.2018 (about seven years) although the offence carried a maximum sentence of ten years, and only a single prosecution witness had been examined till date. Bail was ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions that the applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses, and shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless exempted.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45215

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3523 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nizamuddin @ Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko, Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 209/2018, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 19.08.2018, alleging that three persons riding on a motorcycle were intercepted by the police. Two persons escaped, but the applicant was hit by a gunshot fired by the police, and he was arrested. A pistol was recovered from the applicant. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 19.08.2018. The offence alleged carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment up to ten years, whereas the applicant has already completed about seven years in custody and during this period only a single prosecution witness has been examined till date. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail and did not dispute this fact that the offence alleged carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment up to ten years, whereas the applicant has already completed about seven years in custody and during this period only a single prosecution witness has been examined till date.

¶9

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

¶10

the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.08.2018 and the offence alleged carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment up to ten years, whereas the applicant has already completed about seven years in custody and during this period only a single prosecution witness has been examined till date; without making any observation which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Nizamuddin @ Raju be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶15

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶16

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Arvind

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nizamuddin @ Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizamuddin @ Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jyoti Ravat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amresh Kumar Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rahul Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Nizamuddin @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Nizamuddin @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.