Firoz vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34533 of 2025

Firoz

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Dubey, Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Firoz with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2025, under Sections 310(2), 317(2) BNS, Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., his name was surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of false information given to the Investigating Officer. He further submits that as per the allegation contained in the F.I.R., four unknown persons committed marpeet with the informant and stolen about 1000- 1200 mtr. wire and two battery of tractor. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that wire was recovered from the pointing out of co-accused Murtza and other co-accused. He further submits that co-accused Bilal, Sabir and Julfikar have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025, 09.07.2025 and 29.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26151 of 2025, 19658 of 2025 and 29757 of 2025. He further submits that criminal

¶9

BAIL No. 34533 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

history of two cases against the applicant has been duly explained in para no. 16 and 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 02.05.2025.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. He further contended that applicant is habitual offender and in case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶14

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5- 6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open

¶17

BAIL No. 34533 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶21

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

November 4, 2025 Bhanu

¶27

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firoz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz 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

Lalai vs State of U.P.

Vakil Nishad vs State of U.P.

Amit Dubey vs State of U.P.

Rohitdas vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kalariya vs State of U.P.

Deelip Sharma vs State of U.P.