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

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.06/2025 under Section 318(4)/319(2)/336(4)/338/340(2)356/3(5) BNS and 66C/66D I.T.Act, Police Station Cyber Crime District Raebareli.

¶11

In the prosecution case it is alleged that the applicant, along with the co-accused persons, forged the photograph and name of Superintendent of Police, Raibareli, Dr. Yashveer Singh.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has duly explained the criminal history of one case in the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has surfaced only in the confessional statement of the co-accused. From the personal search of the applicant, one Vivo mobile phone and three India Post Payment Bank cards have been recovered. The applicant is in judicial custody since 18.08.2025, and the charge-sheet in the present case has already been filed.

¶13

It is further submitted that co-accused Sahil Khan and Bashir Ahmad have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 16.10.2025 and 27.10.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10142

¶14

BAIL No. 11105 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

of 2025 and 8994 of 2025, respectively. The applicant, therefore, seeks parity with the aforesaid co-accused.

¶17

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute that it is a case of parity.

¶19

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶20

On due consideration to the bail orders of the co-accused persons, named above, have been granted bail; nature of recovery made from the applicant and the applicant is not named in the FIR, chargesheet has been filed ; the applicant is in jal since 18.8.2025 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶22

Let the applicant Liyakat Khan be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶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

BAIL No. 11105 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

(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, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶30

(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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶31

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.

¶32

November 13, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶33

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

Liyakat Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Maan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Aayush @ Bauva Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

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

Chandan Sharma @ Chandan Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another