Kamaluddin @ Kamal Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28766 of 2025

Kamaluddin @ Kamal

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sushil Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 82

¶6

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Session Trial No. 620/2025, Case Crime No. 110/2024, under Section 105 BNS and 15 India Medical Counciling Act, 1956, P.S.- Ahar, District- Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

This is the second bail application filed by applicant. First bail application bearing no. 135 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025, after considering the fact that however, applicant was not qualified surgeon but in spite of that he was running a hospital and he conducted the operation of the father of the informant due to which he died.

¶10

The second bail application has been filed on the ground that when informant i.e. son of deceased, was examined by the trial court as PW-1 then he did not support the prosecution case and in examination-in-chief he stated that he did not even disclosed the name of the applicant even in the tehrir of the case. It is further submitted that even from the examination-in-chief it appears, deceased was never been treated by the applicant. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 21.11.2024 i.e. for almost one year.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. however opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant but he could not dispute the fact that informant of the case has been examined by

¶12

BAIL No. 28766 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

the trial court as PW-1 and he did not support the prosecution case and from his statement recorded before the trial court the complicity of the applicant could not revealed.

¶15

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

¶16

However, this is the second bail application filed by the applicant and first bail application has been rejected after considering the fact that applicant was not a qualified surgeon but in spite of that he conducted the operation of the father of the informant due to which he died but it reflects that during trial when informant (son of deceased) was examined before the trial court as PW-1 then he did not make any allegation against the applicant and from his statement which has been annexed along with the instant bail application, it reflects he did not even disclose the name of the applicant in the tehrir of the present case.

¶17

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 21.11.2024 i.e. for last almost a year.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant - Kamaluddin @ Kamal 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be

¶25

BAIL No. 28766 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶28

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.

¶29

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶30

September 15, 2025 Sharad/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamaluddin @ Kamal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaluddin @ Kamal 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