Amir Khan vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26443 of 2025

Amir Khan

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ram Raj Pandey, Shashi Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 67

¶6

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 429 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) B.N.S. and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Tajganj, District- Agra, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up subsequently in the statement of informant that too on the basis of suspicion as an afterthought.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that a false recovery of blade has been foisted on the applicant at the time of his arrest the next day of the institution of FIR. It is a clear cut case of false implication, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶12

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

BAIL No. 26443 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶16

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty" gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶17

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 .

¶18

Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 , has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that " bail is a rule and jail is an exception ".

¶19

Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been implicated on the basis of suspicion only, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima faice , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Amir Khan , 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.

¶22

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

¶23

BAIL No. 26443 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶30

November 21, 2025

¶31

Vikas Verma

¶32

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amir Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Patel Alias Tillu vs State of U.P.

Neetu Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jiya Khan @ Gudiya vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet vs State of U.P.

Ashish vs State of U.P.

Guddi Devi vs State of U.P.