Saleem Alias Sajid Ali vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39649 of 2025

Saleem Alias Sajid Ali		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Abhilasha Singh, Shyam Lal	Ashutosh Yadav,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 66

¶3

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶4

1. List revised.

¶5

Heard Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Saleem @ Sajid Ali, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 323 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S., registered at Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad.

¶7

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 12.07.2025 by Yaseen against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that his sister Rukhshar was married around 8 years back in the year 2017 with Tasleem as per Muslim rites and customs. She has three children from the wedlock. Saleem her devar always tried to play with her modesty but she saved herself. She made a complaint to her mother-in-law but she used to quarrel with his sister. Her nand Yasmeen also is on the side of the mother. The accused used to assault her. She told about it to her mother. Due to said act of the accused, she became annoyed and disturbed and committed suicide by hanging.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the devar of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide and died which is also suggestive from the postmortem examination report and the doctor found a single ligature mark and the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. It is further submitted that during investigation co-accused Nayeem, Yasmeen and Anwari the mother-in-law of the deceased have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer during investigation, para 23 of the affidavit has

¶9

BAIL No. 39649 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

been placed before the Court. It is submitted that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased. The applicant has no mens-rea at all. There is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 07.08.2025.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the devar of the deceased. The deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging as per the postmortem report. There is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased. The applicant has no mens-rea at all. There is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence, he is the devar of the deceased.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Saleem @ Sajid Ali , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the

¶20

BAIL No. 39649 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶24

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶25

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶26

The bail application is allowed .

¶27

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶28

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶29

November 19, 2025 M. ARIF

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saleem Alias Sajid Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem Alias Sajid Ali 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

Acchu vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P. at Lucknow

Smt. Sushila vs State of U.P.

Mukesh vs State of U.P.

Prashant Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sudheer vs State of U.P.