Farooq Alias Safi Alias Safia Vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gorakh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

¶12

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 134 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 364, 34 of IPC, Police Station - Ecotech-III, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. He is not named in the FIR.

¶14

Learned counsel has also stated that the informant is not an eye-witness as he simply saw the dead body near garbage on the road. Subsequent to the institution of instant FIR, a new witness, Abid, has been introduced and in his statement, ocular account of the incident has been recorded. The said witness Abid is stated to have seen the victim being assaulting with a brick by the applicant. It is argued that the said star witness did not come forward for three long days from the date of incident, as such, his statement cannot be believed.

¶15

Learned counsel has further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only four witnesses have been examined to date. The co-accused person Akash, has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court

¶16

BAIL No. 27745 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

vide order dated 19.5.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 10034 of 2024.

¶19

Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.03.2022, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶20

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶21

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. 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 . Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶22

It is a settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

¶23

The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356; K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830; Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re. (2017) 10 SCC 658; State Of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447; and Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695) .

¶24

BAIL No. 27745 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

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 ".

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up subsequently coupled by the fact that the informant is not an eye witness, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶28

Let the applicant- Farooq Alias Safi Alias Safia , 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.

¶29

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶30

ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

October 8, 2025 Siddhant

¶35

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Farooq Alias Safi Alias Safia v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farooq Alias Safi Alias Safia 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