Naved vs State of U.P.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pawan Giri, counsel for the informant. Perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 296 of 2025, under Sections 310(2) and 317(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Shikarpur, District- Bulandshahr during pendency of the trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of an information furnished by an informer to the police, co-accused Salim, Salauddin, Junaid and Anas were arrested by the police. In the statements of the said four co-accused, name of the applicant was disclosed. It is contended that the said statements are unreliable. False recovery of a country made pistol, two live cartridges, an aadhar card of Abdul Qadir has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of Indian currency of Rs.2,11,880/- has also been shown. The said Indian currency belongs to the applicant. Further, except the confession of the applicant in police custody at this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Prior to the present case, the applicant has no criminal history, however after his arrest he has been implicated in other cases. The details of the said cases has been stated in paragraph no.11 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 7.8.2025. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

BAIL No. 37534 of 2025

2

satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of an information furnished by an informer to the police, co-accused Salim, Salauddin, Junaid and Anas were arrested by the police. In the statements of the said four co-accused, name of the applicant was disclosed. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confession of the applicant in police custody at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than three months and 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 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, Naved involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.