Faheem Uddin vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mushir Khan and Mr. Kamrul Hasan Siddiqui, counsels for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 390 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 121(1), 61(2) B.N.S. and 66D I.T. Act, Police Station- Alapur, District- Budaun during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The informant is the Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat Aalapur, Badaun. The wife of the applicant is the Chairman of the said Nagar Panchayat. The applicant is neither an employee of the said Nagar Panchayat nor in any manner connected with its affairs and had no role to play in the alleged incident. It is next contended that the alleged dongle (DSC) was in possession of the co-accused Gargi Gupta, who is stated to be working as clerk in the said Nagar Panchayat. The applicant has neither forged nor fabricated any documents. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 38 of the bail application and in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 9.3.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that at this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to establish that the applicant was involved in forgery or fabricated any false documents.

6. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

9. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost two months, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Faheem Uddin involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 6, 2026

S.S.