Riyaz Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

The applicant has moved the present application under praying for grant of bail in Case Crime No.-112/2025, Under sections- 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(6) BNS., P.S.-Kaiserganj District-Bahraich.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, complainant's counsel and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier, FIR No. 109/2024 under Section 363 IPC read with Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act was registered against the applicants and co-accused Azad, who is the real brother of the applicanst, alleging that they had enticed away the daughter of opposite party no. 2. To exert pressure upon the applicant, the same complainant subsequently lodged another FIR, being FIR No. 182/2024, under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC. Thereafter, due to the same grudge, yet another FIR, being FIR No. 277/2024, under Sections 333, 115(2), and 351(2) of the BNS, was also registered at the instance of the same informant against the applicants. The present case is thus the fourth successive FIR lodged by the same complainant solely out of animosity arising from the first FIR No. 109/2024.It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the present prosecution is malicious, and except for these cases, the applicants have no other criminal history. The applicants undertake to cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

BAIL No. 5561 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Learned AGA and complainant's counsel have opposed the bail application, submitting that one injured person, Altaf Ahamd, has sustained three injuries; however, it is not disputed that the said injuries are simple in nature.

¶17

On due consideration to the fact that this is the fourth successive FIR lodged by the same informant against the applicant, the applicant has no criminal history, the co-accused Ayaz Ahmad and another have been given interim protection by this court vide order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Anticipatory bail No.1552 of 2025, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be granted bail. He shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court subject to following conditions :

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iv) 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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

¶23

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails 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

¶24

BAIL No. 5561 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

¶27

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial.

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

November 3, 2025

¶31

kkb/

¶32

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Riyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Chaturvedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Gulab Singh @ Yeshraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Dhananjay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohd. Faishal Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinay Yadav @ Vinay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Ministry Lko