Allowed¶15

Mausam Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2025BAIL/11846/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; second bail application; Section 304 I.P.C.; Case Crime No. 374 of 2023; Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj; hostile prosecution witness Sunil Kumar (P.W.3); first bail application rejected 09.08.2023; applicant in custody since 06.06.2023; no criminal history; personal bond with two local sureties; bail conditions and cancellation clause; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.; November 6, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Second bail application allowed; applicant Mausam Khan to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2023 under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount, subject to five enumerated conditions, with liberty to the court concerned to cancel bail on default of any condition.

Mausam Khan vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, accused in Case Crime No. 374 of 2023 under Section 304 I.P.C. (Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj), whose first bail application was rejected on 09.08.2023, should be enlarged on bail in view of the trial-stage development that prosecution witness P.W.3 (Sunil Kumar) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.

¶15

Court's answer

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations and the gravity of offence, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court found the matter to be a fit case for bail and allowed the second bail application.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The applicant-Mausam Khan was directed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2023, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not threaten or harass prosecution witnesses, shall appear on dates fixed by the trial court, shall not commit any similar offence, and shall not induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence.

¶16

Key takeaways

In case of default of any of the enumerated bail conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) allowed the second bail application of Mausam Khan in Case Crime No. 374 of 2023 under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, by order dated November 6, 2025. His first bail application had been rejected on 09.08.2023 (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34886 of 2023). The decisive trial-stage development was that prosecution witness Sunil Kumar (P.W.3) did not support the prosecution case in cross-examination and was declared hostile, a fact the learned A.G.A. did not dispute. Without expressing any opinion on merits, and considering the overall facts, nature of allegations and gravity of offence, the Court enlarged the applicant on bail on a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like amount, imposing conditions against tampering with evidence, threatening or harassing witnesses, absence on fixed dates, commission of similar offences, and inducement of witnesses, with liberty to cancel bail upon default.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11846 of 2025

¶2

Mausam Khan

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Upendra Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 65

¶6

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant. His first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34886 of 2023.

¶9

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

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the rejection of first bail application of the applicant, the trial has proceeded and during course of trial one witness-Sunil Kumar (P.W.3) in his evidence has not supported the prosecution case in her cross-examination and he had been declared hostile, which statement is annexed as S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today. Thus, it is argued that there is bleak chance that prosecution may prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the applicant may be convicted. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 06.06.2023, having no criminal history and has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail sympathetically.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be

¶12

BAIL No. 11846 of 2025

¶13

¶14

adjudged before conclusion of trial, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence, but he has not disputed that P.W.3 in his statement has not supported the prosecution case during the course of trial and he has been declared hostile.

¶15

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant-Mausam Khan, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2023, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Kasganj, DistrictKasganj, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶18

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶21

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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶23

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶24

November 6, 2025

¶25

Mustaqeem.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mausam Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mausam Khan v. State of U.P.

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

Mohd Hasan vs State of U.P.

Seva Lal vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sahil vs State of U.P.

Nisha Yadav vs State of U.P.

Saleem and Another vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Alias Nanak vs State of U.P. and 3 Others