Saniya Parveen @ Nisha and Another vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Rajput, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.374 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 352, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

As per prosecution story, the applicants and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted and committed the murder of Noor Mohammad on 06.11.2025 at about 6:00 p.m.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about two days, and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR, but subsequently, as an afterthought, two witnesses, namely Lal Mohammad and Nazim Husain, have been roped in, who have categorically stated that it was Anas who had stabbed the deceased with a knife and that the applicants were only standing there; as such, the role of the applicants is at a different footing to the co-accused Anas.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that there is no

¶15

BAIL No. 9370 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 09.11.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR and the role of the applicants, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie , the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicants- Saniya Parveen @ Nisha and Kamar Jahan , be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that they shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶21

Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

¶22

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶23

March 19, 2026

¶24

(Ravi Kant)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saniya Parveen @ Nisha and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saniya Parveen @ Nisha and Another 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

Akshay Vs State of U.P.

Himanshu Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Shoyeb Vs State of U.P.

Nitesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitin Bata @ Harsh Tomar vs State of U.P.

Santosh Sonkar vs State of U.P.