Mohd Ekhlaq Malik Vs State of U.P.

Heard Shri I.M. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar and Ms. Shweta Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Punit Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Mohd. Ekhlaq Malik, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 838 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below has been rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Moradabad vide order dated 17.01.2026 and the applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 22.11.2025.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently contends that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior purposes. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has surfaced during the investigating, in the statement of the witnesses Vikki, Smt. Shakuntala and Rohit. It is argued that except the statement of the witnesses Vikki, Smt. Shakuntla, Rohit and the confessional statement of the applicant recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S., no other evidence has been able to be

¶12

BAIL No. 4937 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

collected by the I.O. to establish crime. It is further argued that no forge documents or any other implicating material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant to connect him to the crime. It is also argued that actual owner of the goods loaded on the vehicle i.e. co-accused Danish @ Itlefat Alam @ Iltefat Alam has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.03.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1842 of 2026. The applicant has criminal history of two cases (including the present case) which has been duly explained. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶15

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶16

Considering all above 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 prima facie , but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the accused-applicant, Mohd. Ekhlaq Malik, 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:

¶19

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶20

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶21

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and cooperate in the trial.

¶22

4. 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.

¶23

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

¶24

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶25

March 28, 2026 Vibha Singh

¶26

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

Mohd Ekhlaq Malik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Ekhlaq Malik 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maniram vs State of U.P.

Kiran Prajapati vs State of U.P.

Maniram Vs State of U.P.

Afsar Vs State of U.P.

Afsar vs State of U.P.

Atul Kumar vs State of U.P.