Mohammad Usman Ali @ Tanaku @ Ajay @ Alam vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

Mohammad Usman Ali @ Tanaku @ Ajay @ Alam vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail application allowed; applicant Mohammad Usman Ali @ Tanaku @ Ajay @ Alam ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) appearance on dates fixed by the trial court; (ii) no tampering with prosecution evidence; (iii) no pressurising prosecution witnesses; (iv) appearance at the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month; breach entitles the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail before this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2022 (Sections 392, 411, 364, 34, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar) during the pendency of trial, having regard to his implication via a co-accused's custodial disclosure, absence of recovery, parity with the bailed co-accused, and his criminal antecedents. +1 more

Court's answer

An accused who is otherwise found entitled to bail cannot be denied bail solely on the ground of criminal history, where no exceptional circumstances based on criminal antecedents (such as likelihood of tampering with investigation, intimidating witnesses, or evading process) have been shown by the State.

Ratio / Principle

On a prima facie assessment, the applicant was not named in the first information report; his name emerged through the disclosure made by co-accused Mohd. Asif while in police custody; no incriminating article was recovered from him; and the co-accused Mohd. Asif has already been granted bail by this Court.

Key takeaways

Given continued confinement (stated as more than three months) and no hope of early conclusion of trial, and without commenting on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.ratio¶¶17
The settled purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial; the learned A.G.A. did not show any material or circumstance that the applicant is not entitled to bail in the larger interest of the public or the State.obiter¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vivek Varma, J.; Order dated 5.3.2025) allowed a bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. seeking enlargement during trial in Case Crime No. 101 of 2022 (Sections 392, 411, 364, 34, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar). Prima facie, the applicant was not named in the FIR and stood implicated on the disclosure of co-accused Mohd. Asif made in police custody; no incriminating article was recovered from him, and the co-accused had already been granted bail vide order dated 11.10.2022 in Bail Application No. 42348 of 2022 (Mohd. Asif v. State of U.P.). On criminal antecedents, the Court held that an accused otherwise entitled to bail cannot be denied bail merely for criminal history where no exceptional circumstances — tampering, witness intimidation or evasion of process — are shown, relying on Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446; Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., 2020 (11) SCC 648; and Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 (10) SCC 51 (bail as rule, jail as exception, on the touchstone of Article 21). Noting prolonged confinement and absence of prospects of early trial completion, the Court released the applicant on a personal bond with two heavy sureties (heavy in view of criminal history), imposing conditions including appearance on fixed dates, non-tampering, non-intimidation of witnesses, and monthly (first Sunday) appearance at the police station, with liberty to seek cancellation on breach.