Ibne Ali @ Shahrukh vs State Of U.P.
- Neutral2026:AHC:106192
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an applicant is charged with offences under sections 140(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 3/25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, consideration of the nature of the offence, the evidence on record, the complicity of the accused, and the severity of the prescribed punishment may warrant enlargement on bail during trial. Where bail is granted, the accused must execute a personal bond and furnish two sureties in an amount determined by the court, and the identity, status and residence of the sureties must be verified by the authorities before acceptance. Where bail conditions are breached, the trial court has the power to cancel the bail.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The present case has been taken up out of turn under the category of mention cases..
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
3. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.329 of 2025, under Sections 140(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of B.N.S. & 3/25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act P.S. Alapur, District-Budaun, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. Allegation of demand of Rs.50,00,000/- has been leveled against the applicant- accused and the victim was stated to be recovered from Mumbai but neither the place of recovery of the victim and from whose possession the victim was recovered, have not been disclosed nor anything relating to present case has been recovered either from the possession of applicant or on his pointing out. He next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.10.2025 i.e. for last more than six months. He lastly submitted that almost similarly placed co-accused Nigar has been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3934 of 2026, therefore, applicant may also be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
6. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, and submissions of learned counsel for the parties; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
7. Let applicant, Ibne Ali @ Shahrukh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
i. The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
ii. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
iii. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
8. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 7, 2026
KK Patel
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free