Allowed

Sahabuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025BAIL/10891/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad allowed the bail application of Sahabuddin, citing lack of criminal record, limited prosecution witnesses, and absence of a Section 65(b) certificate, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions including appearance dates and non-interference.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10891 of 2022

Sahabuddin

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sukh Deo Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Paritosh Shukla, Shitla Prasad Tripathi, Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 15

¶10

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 10.06.2022. It is argued that he has been falsely implicated. There is no independent witness to the incident, as the certificate under Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act has not been obtained by the prosecuting agency. PW-1 and PW-2 have already been examined before the trial court. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Considering that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents, is in jail since 10.06.2022; only two prosecution witnesses have been examined till date; and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 , this Court finds it a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶16

BAIL No. 10891 of 2022

¶17

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Sahabuddin , involved in FIR No. 217 of 2022, U/Ss. 377 I.P.C r/w 11 Animal Cruelty Act, P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, be released on bail in the aforementioned 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶23

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶24

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.

¶25

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶26

December 10, 2025 R.C.

¶27

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

Sahabuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahabuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pancham Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohammad Wasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vivek Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Mukesh Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramtej Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Home, Lucknow

Satyendra Rawat Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.