Kasim vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kasim vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Kasim ordered released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with prosecution evidence; (ii) not to pressurize the prosecution witness; (iii) to appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court; in case of breach, the prosecution is at liberty to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, alleged to have been falsely implicated, is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2025 under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) B.N.S. during pendency of the trial.

Court's answer

Prima facie there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery and, at this stage, no substantive evidence linking the applicant with the offence.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant has remained confined for over a month with no hope of early conclusion of trial, and the State has brought no reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness.

Key takeaways

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Kasim v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39894 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Vivek Varma, J., November 25, 2025): applicant sought enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) B.N.S., Police Station Kirawali, District Agra. Counsel contended false implication, false recovery of motorcycle and motorcycle parts from joint possession of the applicant and two coaccused, absence of independent witness to the recovery, and lack of corroborative evidence. The Court prima facie found no independent witness to the alleged recovery and no substantive evidence at this stage linking the applicant with the offence; noted the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had remained confined for more than one month with no hope of early conclusion of trial, and that the State brought no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. Without commenting on the merits, the applicant was held entitled to bail and ordered released on a personal bond with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering with prosecution evidence, non-pressurizing prosecution witnesses, and appearance on every date fixed by the trial court; breach entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation before this Court.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39894 of 2025

Kasim

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Kalim Uddin
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Kirawali, District- Agra during pendency of the trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of motorcycle and motorcycle parts has been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and two coaccused. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 30.9.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not 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 there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has presently remained confined for more than one month and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable

BAIL No. 39894 of 2025

2

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, Kasim 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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

November 25, 2025

S.S.

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad