Saddam @ Mahtab Alam Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

Saddam @ Mahtab Alam Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted on the ground of parity; applicant Saddam @ Mahtab Alam to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance before trial court on dates fixed), with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on breach.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, whose role is identical to that of co-accused Manoj Kumar Sahani (already enlarged on bail by this Court) and who has no criminal history, is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions, evidence on record, and the judgments in Paras Ram Vishnoi, Nanha and Satender Kumar Antil, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed on the ground of parity; the applicant Saddam @ Mahtab Alam was to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed.

Key takeaways

On breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.ratio¶¶21
Observations made in granting bail shall not affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses; identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties to be verified before bonds are accepted.obiter¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.), deciding Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30187 of 2025, allowed bail to applicant Saddam @ Mahtab Alam solely on the ground of parity, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The offence: Case Crime No. 48 of 2025, Sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5), 191(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, bail sought during pendency of trial. Basis of parity: the applicant's role is identical to that of co-accused Manoj Kumar Sahani, already enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31752 of 2025; the applicant has been in jail since 4.3.2025 and has no criminal history; the learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but did not dispute these factual aspects. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, CBI (MANU/SCOR/22410/2021), this Court's judgment in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P. (1993 Cri.L.J. 938), and the Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825). Release ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: not to tamper with evidence, not to pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and to appear before the trial court on dates fixed; on breach, the prosecution may seek cancellation before this Court; identity, status and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before bonds are accepted; observations made are not to affect the trial Judge's independent assessment of witness testimony.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30187 of 2025

Saddam @ Mahtab Alam

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anju Shukla, Shailesh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.48 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5), 191(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Manoj Kumar Sahani has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31752 of 2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.3.2025, having no criminal history. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Paras

BAIL No. 30187 of 2025

2

Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 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 , and 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 on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

Let the applicant- Saddam @ Mahtab Alam involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

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

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

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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

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 on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

October 9, 2025 Vikas Verma

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