Allowed¶16

Azad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025BAIL/37447/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, single Judge (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.), decided November 19, 2025 - Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37447 of 2025, Azad v. State of U.P.; bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 in Case Crime No. 477 of 2025, Sections 5/6 Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar; applicant in jail since 8.9.2025, no criminal antecedent; bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions including non-tampering, no criminal activity, no witness intimidation and regular trial appearance.

What did the court decide?

Release of accused-applicant Azad on bail on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the stated conditions; in the event of breach, the court below is at liberty to cancel bail. ¶16

Azad vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether accused-applicant Azad, in custody since 8.9.2025 in Case Crime No. 477 of 2025 under Sections 5/6 Explosive Substance Act, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, should be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses and the prima facie case, but without commenting on the merits, a case for bail is made out.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed; the accused-applicant is to be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no criminal activity, no pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses, co-operation in trial, regular appearance before the trial court), breach of which entitles the court below to cancel bail.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Azad, accused in Case Crime No. 477 of 2025 under Sections 5/6 Explosive Substance Act, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, in custody since 8.9.2025 and stated to have no criminal antecedent. Considering the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence, apprehension of tampering with witnesses and the prima facie case, but without commenting on merits, the Allahabad High Court (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) held a case for bail was made out and allowed the application, directing release on a personal bond with two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, criminal activity and intimidation of prosecution witnesses, and requiring regular appearance in trial; breach entitles the court below to cancel bail.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37447 of 2025

¶3

Azad

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prem Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 68

¶7

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Prem Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Azad , seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 477 of 2025, under Sections 5/6 Explosive Substance Act, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 8.9.2025. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶11

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

BAIL No. 37447 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Let the accused-applicant, Azad , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶18

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶19

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶20

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶21

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶22

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶23

November 19, 2025

¶24

Ravi Prakash

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Azad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad 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

Similar cases

Moti Singh vs State of U.P.

Farman vs State of U.P.

Gopal vs State of U.P.

Dharvesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Amit Alias Joni vs State of U.P.

Shahzad vs State of U.P.