Shahjad @ Saiyaad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that while the complainant went to withdraw money from an SBI ATM, an unknown person informed him that the transaction had not been completed. On this pretext, the complainant became confused, and the said person allegedly replaced his ATM card. Thereafter, four transactions were made, and a total sum of Rs. 45,000/- was withdrawn.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery of Rs. 21,000/- and six ATM cards is false and that no independent witness was present at the time of recovery. The applicant’s name has surfaced solely on the basis of his confessional statement. The criminal antecedents of nine cases have been explained in paragraph 11 of the bail application.

¶14

It is further submitted that co-accused Waseem, who was apprehended along with the applicant and is on an identical footing, has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court, Ambedkar Nagar. A copy of that order has been filed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶15

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing

¶16

BAIL No. 10057 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶20

Upon due consideration of the fact that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery; the offences are triable by a Magistrate; the applicant has explained the criminal antecedents of nine cases; and the co-accused Waseem has been granted bail by the lower court, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 16.09.2025, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant Shahjad @ Saiyaad involved in Case Crime No668/2025, U/S-319(2), 318(4), 303 (2), 317(4), 3(5) BNS, P/S- Kotwali Akbarpur District-Ambedkarnagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(iii) 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.

¶26

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence,

¶28

BAIL No. 10057 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶31

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶32

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶33

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶34

November 14, 2025 R.C.

¶35

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shahjad @ Saiyaad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahjad @ Saiyaad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Deepak Pal Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Kamal Kutil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Liyakat Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh @ D.K Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Dilgajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jamal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another