Allowed

Rizwan Zaheer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025/4131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowed the bail application filed by Rizwan Zaheer. The court considered prior bail of a co-accused, lack of injury to the informant, and the stage of trial before granting bail on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Rizwan Zaheer is released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two reliable sureties, one of whom must be a family member, subject to specified conditions.

Rizwan Zaheer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4131 of 2024

¶3

Rizwan Zaheer

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.	Versus Home U.P	. Lko.	.....Op P	posite arty(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vivek Nagend Choudh Kumar	Pandey, ra Moh ary, S Tiwari	Jagriti Bardhan an, Ravi Singh, hashank Singh,	Rao, Ruby Vinay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Kancha Siddiqu	Bal n Sinh i	Keshwar Sriv a, Mohammad	astava, Airaj

¶6

Court No. - 13

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. V.K. Singh, learned G.A. assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 183 of 2022, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 327, 307, 447 IPC, P.S.- Tuslipur, District - Balrampur.

¶10

While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶11

It is further stated that co-accused namely Rameez Nemat has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10403 of 2022, as such, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.10.2022 reads as under:-

¶12

"It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that story has been concocted, regrading execution of registered sale deed of a land, which was executed on 27.09.2001 and thereafter it has been alleged that the present applicant has grabbed the land in question. He added that informant while being asked by the investigating officer, has replied that she has no knowledge with respect to date and time of the incident. He added that there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect the present applicant in the instant matter. He next added that applicant never tried to strangulate the informant and he further supported his contention by way of demonstrating that there is no injury

¶13

BAIL No. 4131 of 2024

¶14

¶15

to the alleged injured person. He further added that in fact it is not a case where applicant went to the place of the informant and strangulated her, contrary, the informant herself came to the house of the applicant and it is alleged that she was tried to be strangulated by the applicant. He next submits that there is no such prima facie evidence so as to connect the applicant, in the instant case. He added that in fact present applicant has been made escape goat, as the wife of the applicant contested the election against the brother of the informant namely Abdul Mashood Khan, thus in retaliation, the instant FIR has been lodged only to mount pressure over the applicant. He also added that there are five cases criminal history which has been explained in para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit as well as in the bail application. He further added that it is an admitted case of the State that there is no injury on the body of the injured which is evident in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 10.01.2022. He submits that the applicant undertakes that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶16

Per contra learned AGA appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that complainant has made specific allegation in the FIR that she has been strangulated and further added that applicant is habitual offender and there are four cases criminal history against the applicant and if he would be released on bail, he would tamper the evidences and would threaten the witnesses.

¶17

On the other hand, counsel appearing for complainant has also strongly opposed the contention of counsel for the applicant and submits that offence has been committed by the applicant including other co-accused persons and if he would be granted bail, the trial would be affected.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, including paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it is an admitted fact that there is no injury on the body of the injured/informant; further the informant when being quarried by the Investigating Officer, has failed to reply regarding date and time of the incident and further as per assertion of learned counsel for the applicant there seems to be political rivalry in between the parties; further criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 11 of the bail application, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 10.01.2022, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶19

Let the applicant- Rameez Nemat involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- "

¶20

It is also stated that before the trial court arguments were heard and judgment was reserved and the same was fixed on 01.11.2025 for delivery of judgment. However, on account of preferring an application seeking transfer of the case the final judgment could not be delivered on 01.11.2025 and now the case is fixed for tomorrow i.e. on 27.11.2025 for disposal of the application seeking transfer of the case. Thus, it can be

¶21

BAIL No. 4131 of 2024

¶22

¶23

inferred that on one pretext or another, the side opposite wants that the applicant be not released from judicial custody.

¶24

It is also stated that in view of the fact that evidence by the parties has already been adduced before the trail court and the matter is at the stage of final arguments, which could be advanced within reasonable time period as the trial court could not pronounce the judgment on account of preferring a transfer application, the applicant if released on bail would be in a better position to assist his counsel.

¶25

It is also stated that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, which has not been refuted by the learned AGA.

¶26

It is submitted that considering aforesaid, the applicant, who is in jail since 10.01.2022, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶27

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel including that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court.

¶28

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also taking note of the fact that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶29

Let the applicant- Rizwan Zaheer be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶30

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶31

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶32

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶33

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶34

(v) The applicant 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.

¶35

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶36

BAIL No. 4131 of 2024

¶37

¶38

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶39

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶40

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.

¶41

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order.

¶42

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶43

November 26, 2025

¶44

Arun/-

¶45

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rizwan Zaheer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwan Zaheer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khan Bahadur Vs the State of U.P.

Swami Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Prabhakar Kumar Singh vs Shri K. Vijayendra Pandian V.C. Chandra Shekhar Azad Univ. of Agri. and Tech. Kanpur and Another

Srichandra Bajpai vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Santosh Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another