Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108787

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21689 of 2025

Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2025, under Sections 5/25(8), 3/25 of Arms Act and Section 111(3) B.N.S., Police Station Lohiyanagar, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly he was not arrested at spot and co-accused Muiz was arrested at spot and from his possession number of tools were recovered which allegedly used in manufacturing of illegal weapons. He further submits, applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of statement of co-accused Muiz.

¶9

He further submits, applicant is neither having any previous criminal history nor there is any evidence that he is member of any crime syndicate but in spite of that he has been made accused for offence of organized crime. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 05.05.2025.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

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

¶12

However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects, on the basis of information furnished by co-accused Muiz, who was arrested at spot, the applicant has been made accused in the present

¶13

matter.

¶14

Further, there is no allegation that applicant also indulged in manufacturing of illegal weapon and however it reflects, as per prosecution after manufacturing the illegal weapon co-accused Muiz provided the same to the applicant but it reflects, except the statement of co-accused Muiz there is no cogent evidence in this regard on record.

¶15

The applicant has neither any previous criminal history nor there is evidence that he is member of crime syndicate. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 05.05.2025.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Let the applicant Rashid , 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 9.7.2025 pks

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid 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