Allowed

Mohd. Firasat v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2025BAIL/37637/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed in a case involving offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, and 427 IPC. The Court, relying on Article 21 and jail overcrowding statistics, granted bail on conditions preventing witness tampering and ensuring court appearance, noting no expression of opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, court attendance, and non-adjournment.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37637 of 2025

¶2

Mohd. Firasat

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Hari Om Sharan Tiwari, Shrikant Chaturvedi
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 Mohd. Firasat with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.535 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 427 IPC, Police Station Dhampur, District- Bijnor, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive and is languishing in jail since 24.9.2025. It is submitted that the FIR was registered against nine accused persons including the applicant but no specific and separate role of applicant has been assigned in the FIR. It is further submitted that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 395, 397, 302, 307 IPC but during the course of investigation the I.O. has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 427 IPC and sections 395, 397, 307, 302 IPC were deleted. It is argued that applicant has criminal antecedents one case which has been explained in para-27 of the bail application. It is further argued that co-accused Vishal Ahmad, Rifakat, Athar Hammad @ Hammad, Arshad Ali @ Bundu and Parvez Ahmad have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.8.2025, 1.9.2025, 26.9.2025 and 15.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.29741 of 2025, 29997 of 2025, 33475 of 2025 and 35683 of 2025 respectively. It is lastly submitted that since the charge-sheet has been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating/pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long 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.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by

¶10

BAIL No. 37637 of 2025

¶11

¶12

contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. 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; period of detention in jail, keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of 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 for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20