Avid Ali @ Abid Ali Vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Ashish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. Sri Mohd. Faiz, learned counsel for the first informant has also been heard in opposition to the bail application.

¶11

This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Avid Ali @ Abid Ali with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 504 IPC, Police Station C. B. Ganj, District Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32572of 2024 while the second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail application No. 1430 of 2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.07.2024.

¶12

Learned counsel while pressing the third bail application has reiterated the entire submissions made in the second bail application. He further submits that t his Court denied the second bail to the applicant being of the view that the applicant was named in the FIR. Babar Ali, eye witness of the incident had specifically assigned the role of firing to the applicant and that the applicant was a habitual offender having 22 cases (31 cases shown in the rejection order of the trial court) and involved in heinous crimes, as such was not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the witness

¶14

BAIL No. 41068 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Babar Ali in his deposition as PW2 has resiled from his earlier statement under Section 183 BNSS and has stated that his statement was incorrectly recorded by the Investigating Officer. He was at his house when he heard 4 fun shots. Abid had no previous enmity nor he indulged in any mar-peet. Learned counsel has passed on the certified copy of the statement of Babar Ali recorded as PW2 which is taken on record. Learned counsel next submits that the present case is a case of no injury and there is no medical report of the injured Shaukat Ali. It is next submitted that accused Wajid Ali has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly vide order dated 24.02.2025 itself. The co-accused Naser Ali and Mohd. Suhil have been granted anticipatory bail by the trial court till the conclusion of the trial. The PW1 injured in his statement has also not assigned any role of firing to the applicant. It is also argued that the Investigating Officer wrongly drawn the site plan and the same is evident from the statement of PW1. The criminal antecedents of the applicant have been duly explained in Para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The charge sheet against the applicant has been submitted on 11.08.2024. There are 12 witnesses and only 2 persecution witnesses have been examined so far. The witnesses have not supported the FIR version. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for.

¶17

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail on the ground of criminal history of the applicant but could not dispute the above submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and primafacie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the accused-applicant, Avid Ali @ Abid Ali , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶21

BAIL No. 41068 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶24

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶25

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶26

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶27

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶28

February 10, 2026 pks

¶29

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Avid Ali @ Abid Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avid Ali @ Abid Ali 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Zeenat Vs State of U.P.

Tasawwar Vs State of U.P.

Sarju vs State of U.P.

Nitin Chauhan vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Tiwari Vs State of U.P.