Allowed¶21

Sultan (in Fir Sultan @ Suleman) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2026BAIL/563/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sultan @ Suleman bail; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 563 of 2026; Case Crime No. 393 of 2025; Section 3/5/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act; PS Bhadokhar, District Raebareli; parity with co-accused Intezar (Bail Application No. 11411 of 2025, order dated 20.11.2025); charge-sheet filed; in custody since 23.12.2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow); Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; decided January 30, 2026; bail allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Sultan to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) not tamper with prosecution evidence; (ii) not pressurize prosecution witnesses; (iii) appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. ¶21

Sultan (in Fir Sultan @ Suleman) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 563 of 2026

¶3

Sultan (In Fir Sultan @ Suleman)

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sachin Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 15

¶10

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶12

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.393 of 2025 under Section 3/5/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not arrested from the spot and that no recovery has been made from him. It is further submitted that the applicant has been made an accused solely on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused, Intezar, who was apprehended from the spot and has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 11411 of 2025, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The applicant seeks parity with the bail order passed in favour of the said co-accused and submits that his case stands on a better footing than that of the co-accused Intezar. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet in the present case has already been filed.

¶14

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶16

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶17

On due consideration of the bail order passed in favour of the co-accused Intezar; the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 23.12.2025; and that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

BAIL No. 563 of 2026

¶19

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant Sultan , involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case crime number, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶22

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶23

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶24

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶25

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶26

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶27

January 30, 2026 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sultan (in Fir Sultan @ Suleman) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan (in Fir Sultan @ Suleman) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Similar cases

Adarsh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Animal Husbandry and Dairying Lko. and 3 Others

Gulshan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Abhi Agrahari @ Amal Agrahari @ Aman Aarahari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Anees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Salman @ Dablu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Mohammad Salim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.