Sahil Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15038 of 2025

Sahil Ahmad

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ali Hasan, Asif Hasan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 82

¶7

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶8

The instant second bail application is being heard out of turn on the request made by learned counsel for applicant that similarly placed coaccused has already been released on bail.

¶9

Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 07 of 2023, under Sections 394, 302, 201, 411, 414 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur during pendency of the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 but after rejection of first bail application of the applicant, bail application of co-accused Imran Ahmad has been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36376 of 2023 and as far as facts of the case are concerned, the case of applicant is exactly at par with him.

¶12

He further submits, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 18.01.2023 i.e. for last more than two and half years.

¶13

He further submits, applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is

¶15

BAIL No. 15038 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering the entire facts of the case but could not dispute the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is in jail since 18.01.2023 i.e. for last more than two and half years.

¶18

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that along with applicant co-accused Imran Ahmad has also been made accused but he has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court after rejection of first bail application of the applicant and case of applicant is at par with him. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶20

This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 after considering the fact that however it is a case of circumstantial evidence but applicant and others had taken the deceased in his car and subsequently his dead body was found and even from the possession of applicant and two others including co-accused Imran Ahmad the vehicle of the deceased was also recovered but it reflects, after rejection of first bail application of the applicant, co-accused Imran Ahmad has been released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court and on facts case of applicant is at par with him.

¶21

The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that:-

¶22

"Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."

¶23

Further, admittedly it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 18.01.2023 i.e. for last more than two and half years. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

¶24

BAIL No. 15038 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶28

Let the applicant - Sahil Ahmad be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶31

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶33

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶34

September 18, 2025 AK Pandey

¶35

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahil Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil Ahmad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases