Musabbar @ Gabdu @ Musabbar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0233/2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS [(akin to Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.) (now repealed)], Police Station - Sursa, District - Hardoi.

¶12

While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that a perusal of the F.I.R./Case Crime No.0233/2025, lodged by Rajjaq Ali (informant) on 04.09.2025, at Police Station-Sursa, District - Hardoi, in connection to which the present applicant is in jail since 06.09.2025, would indicate that on account of some dispute/altercation relating to two children of both sides, i.e. children of the family of the applicant and children of the family of the informant, the applicant namely Musabbar @ Gabdu @ Musabbar Ali, Sher Ali and Naseem, sons of Saukhin Ali, and Nanhi, daughter of Naseem, reached the house of the informant, and there hurled abuses, which was opposed by the wife of the informant and thereafter all the persons referred herein before assaulted the wife of the informant with lathi, who on account of the blow of the lathi became unconscious.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that considering the allegations leveled in the written report, an F.I.R. No.0233/2025, detailed above, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS was lodged.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. indicate that the incident occurred without premeditation of mind on spur of moment and heat of passion and therefore the offence indicated under Section 103 (1)

¶16

BAIL No. 12245 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

of BNS, akin to Section 302 I.P.C. (now repealed), added section on account of the death of the informant during treatment, would not be attracted and in this regard Section 304 Part II I.P.C. (now repealed), akin to Section 105 Part II of BNS, if the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accusedapplicant would be attracted.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that other co-accused namely Sher Ali has been exonerated by the I.O.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that co-accused Nanhi has been released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case, if the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant, in that eventuality the case of the applicant would fall under Section 105 Part II of BNS and in this situation the applicant would be entitled to the provisions of the Probation of Offender Act, 1958 as the applicant has not been previously convicted.

¶22

In these circumstances, the applicant, who has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 06.09.2025, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant. However, he could not dispute the above contention made by the applicant's counsel.

¶24

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also that applicant has no criminal history and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant - Musabbar @ Gabdu @ Musabbar Ali be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of the family member, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

BAIL No. 12245 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

(v) 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.

¶33

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶34

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶35

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶36

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶37

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶38

February 2, 2026 ML/-

¶39

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Musabbar @ Gabdu @ Musabbar Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musabbar @ Gabdu @ Musabbar Ali 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

Ram Bilas Yadav and 18 Others vs Shri P. Guru Prasad, Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Manzoor Ahmad Khan vs Sri Amrit Abhijeet Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and Another

Yash Veer Singh vs Pawan Kumar Tiwari Distt. Inspector of Schools Ayodhya

Govind vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Sammaydin vs Shri Vishal Kumar, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda

Karimuddin Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko