Mohd Ayub Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37781 of 2025

Mohd Ayub

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Amit Kumar Yadav, Ashok Kumar Maurya, Rajeev Kumar Singh, Saurabh Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 67

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Pandey, 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.76 of 2025, under Sections74, 64(1), 351(3), 103(1) BNS and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police StationGhosi, District-Mau, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased accidentally fell in the bathroom and suffered injuries. Therefore, the applicant, being the husband of the deceased, admitted her to the hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries. The present FIR was lodged on 11.02.2025, which is after 76 days, though the allegation has been made by the first informant regarding the commission of rape upon her. However, the applicant had established a relationship with the first informant with her consent; therefore, no case of rape is made out. It is further submitted that after registering the FIR, the body of the deceased was exhumed and a postmortem was conducted, but the cause of death could not be ascertained. There is no incriminating material against the applicant to show that he had murdered his wife or forcibly raped the first informant, who is the sister-in-law. Even the lodging of the FIR after 76 days itself casts doubt over the entire prosecution story. It is further submitted that the police, after investigation, deleted Section 103 BNS. However, at the time of framing of charges, a charge was framed under Section 103 BNS, despite the fact that there is no incriminating material against the applicant. The applicant is a law

¶10

BAIL No. 37781 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 16.02.2025. 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. reported in 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- Mohd Ayub, 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

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

BAIL No. 37781 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar 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

April 27, 2026 S.C.

¶29

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Ayub v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Ayub 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

Similar cases

Mevalal Prajapati vs State of U.P.

Vishal Yadav vs State of U.P.

Saif Ali vs State of U.P.

Jainuddin Vs State of U.P.

Almuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shuaib Vs State of U.P.