Allowed

Mohd Aashiq v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2025BAIL/22008/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under BNS sections arising from Case Crime No. 304 of 2024, PS Nakhasa, Sambhal. Applicant sought bail on parity with two co-accused already released; State did not dispute parity. Bail granted on furnishing personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses.

Mohd Aashiq vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117013

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22008 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd Aashiq Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 304 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3) 190, 109(1), 121(2), 132, 223-B, 117(2) B.N.S. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Nakhasa, District-Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused persons, Rafiuzmaa @ Rafi and Mohd Aqib have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 02.06.2025 and 23.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17898 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17983 of 2025 respectively. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.12.2024. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused persons has not been disputed by him.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of

¶12

Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

Let the applicant- Mohd Aashiq , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Karan

¶19

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Aashiq v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Aashiq v. State of U.P.

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

Rajesh @ Guddu vs State of U.P.

Chhotey Lal vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Surendra vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P.

Harendra vs State of U.P.