Hasan Ahmad vs State of U.P.

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 105 BNS, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 24.04.2025. The first information report was lodged on 01.05.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The informant (now deceased) was examined on the same day at 8.40 p.m. In the Opinion of the doctor, the injuries were simple in nature. The duration of the injuries was recorded as 1-2 days old. The informant died on 03.06.2025. As per the postmortem report, no antemortem injury was seen on all over the body. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is septicemia as a result of multi organ failure. It is contended that the injuries as recorded by the doctor on 24.04.2025 cannot be attributed to the alleged incident dated 24.04.2025. The applicant had no role in the alleged incident. The applicant is in jail since 19.06.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

BAIL No. 30235 of 2025

2

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. In the Opinion of the doctor, the injuries were simple in nature. The duration of the injuries was recorded as 1-2 days old. As per the postmortem report, no antemortem injury was seen on all over the body. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is due to septicemia as a result of multi organ failure. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant Hasan Ahmad, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;