Azmal Vs State of U.P.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant surfaced only on the basis of the statement of named co-accused Shamshad Ahmad recorded while in the police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. The applicant is neither the proprietor nor in any manner connected with the firm namely SD Enterprises, Dhampur Road, Sherkot, Bijnor. Neither any amount was transferred from the bank account of the aforesaid firm to the bank account of the applicant nor is the applicant a beneficiary of the illicit transactions. Moreover, the bank account of the applicant, Aadhar Card, Pan Card and mobile number of the applicant were not linked with the said firm. False recovery of a Redmi mobile phone, eleven Aadhar cards and a Voter ID card has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. After the arrest of the applicant, he has been implicated in other cases, details whereof have been mentioned in Paragraph-21 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 21.01.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said

BAIL No. 14454 of 2026

2

liberty.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report and his name was disclosed by the named co-accused Shamshad Ahmad while in the police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, 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- Azmal, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he: