Abrar and Another vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38460 of 2025

Abrar And Another

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohd Hasnain, Mishra	Musharraf	Ali, Sanjay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicants Abrar and Saleem seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.548 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506, 120-B/34 IPC, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accused-applicant have not committed any offence of fraud with the informant or any other victim as alleged in the FIR and have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicants are languishing in jail since 15.9.2025. It is submitted that eleven accused persons including the applicants are named in the FIR. It is further submitted that as per the unregistered agreement to sell, an agreement was executed between the parties on 1.5.2017, wherein Rs.20,00,000/- was given to the first party in cash by the second party, whereas the FIR was lodged on 23.8.2023 in respect of the above agreement at a very belated stage for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. It is argued that neither the signatures present on the unregistered agreement to sell are not of the applicants nor they were the party to it. It is further argued that co-accused Satendra Singh Yadav, Mahipal Singh Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.2.2025, 30.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.6448 of 2025 and 21199 of 2024 respectively while accused Dev Singh Rana has been granted an arrest stay order by this Court vide order dated 1.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.

¶9

BAIL No. 38460 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

Writ Petition No.16701 of 2023. It is lastly submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit and since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 25.2.2025, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of their fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, they does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicants are released on bail, they may again indulge in similar activities and 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 applicants, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR SC 712 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶17

(iv) The applicants 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances

¶18

BAIL No. 38460 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

appearing in the evidence against them.

¶21

(v) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them strictly, in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

November 13, 2025 RA

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abrar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abrar and Another 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

Vinay Alias Kallu vs State of U.P.

Atul Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Badhshah vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow

Jaswant vs State of U.P.

Firoz vs State of U.P.

Lalai vs State of U.P.