Gufran Ilahi vs State Of U.P.

1. At the outset, counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the date of judicial custody of the applicant in the memo of application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 257 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Thana Bhawan, District - Shamli, during the pendency of trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report has been lodged belatedly. The applicant and the informant, both are claiming rights over the disputed property. The informant intends to oust the applicant from the property in dispute. The case is purely civil in nature. The appropriate remedy for the informant is to initiate a civil suit for claiming possession. It is next contended that the applicant has neither threatened the informant nor forged or fabricated any documents. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 05.03.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. The case is purely civil in nature. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than two months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant Gufran Ilahi, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

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

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. 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 7, 2026

Manish Kr