Kadeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13514 of 2026

Kadeem Ahmad

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Atul Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 67

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned panel lawyer appointed by the High Court Legal Services Authority for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 376 of 2025, under Sections- 191(2), 191(3), 190, 110, 103(1), 115(2), 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Milak, District- Rampur, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the deceased, who is a relative of the applicant, had come to the house of the applicant to settle the dispute between co-accused Nadeem and his wife, and during the said discussion, a quarrel took place, wherein it is alleged that the applicant and his brother fired upon the deceased and other co-accused person had also assaulted the other family members, and subsequently the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is further submitted that, in the statement of the injured eye-witness, it is clearly mentioned that co-accused Nadeem fired upon the deceased from a pistol, as a result of which the deceased fell down, and although an allegation of firing has also been assigned to the applicant, no recovery of any weapon has been made on the pointing out of the applicant, whereas the firearm has been recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Nadeem, against whom a specific allegation of firing has been made, and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the

¶10

BAIL No. 13514 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

present case merely because he is the brother of the main accused, Nadeem. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 25.09.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Kadeem Ahmad , involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶16

i. 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.

¶17

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

BAIL No. 13514 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Verification of mobile number and Aadhar card of the applicant as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.

¶25

It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

¶26

It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

¶27

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.

¶28

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶29

April 23, 2026 SA

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kadeem Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadeem Ahmad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jyoti @ Soni vs State of U.P.

Chhote Bhatiya vs State of U.P.

Manoj vs State of U.P.

Mevalal Prajapati vs State of U.P.

Shivam Namdev Vs State of U.P.

Shoaib Alias Sonu Vs State of U.P.