Mohd. Sahil vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.20 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS, Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and he is in jail since 24.1.2026. He further submits that co-accused, Mohd. Sameer having identical role, has already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 1.6.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2733 of 2026 (bail order provided by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record). In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail, but he conceded the fact that co-accused Mohd. Sameer has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents, bail order of the co-accused, Mohd. Sameer, ground of

¶14

BAIL No. 2682 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

parity as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Let applicant - Mohd. Sahil - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

(ii) 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.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶21

(iv) 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 IPC/269 BNS.

¶22

(v) 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./84 BNS, may be issued and if 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 IPC/209 BNS.

¶23

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNS. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate

¶24

BAIL No. 2682 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

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

¶28

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶29

June 12, 2026

¶30

GauraV/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sahil v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sahil v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

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

Sushma Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rahul Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vimlesh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Ram Swaroop vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Backward Class Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Balkishan @ Golu vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another